Supreme Court, Order No. 20257/2025: Clarifications on the Appealability of Acquittals at the Preliminary Hearing

Criminal procedural law is a constantly evolving field, often characterised by complex rules that require careful interpretation by case law. The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in Italy, has the fundamental task of ensuring the uniform application of the law and resolving interpretative doubts. It is in this context that Order No. 20257 of 30 May 2025 is placed, a ruling that offers essential clarification on appeals, with particular reference to acquittals issued at the preliminary hearing. The issue, which arose in the proceedings involving F. D. S. against P.M.T., concerned the correct interpretation of the appeal regime following recent reforms.

The Context: Preliminary Hearing and Acquittal Judgment

The preliminary hearing is a filtering stage in the Italian criminal proceedings. Its main function is to assess whether the evidence gathered by the Public Prosecutor's Office is sufficient to support the charges in court. If the Judge for the Preliminary Hearing (G.U.P.) considers that there is no evidence to support a charge, or that the act did not occur, does not constitute a crime, or is not punishable, they issue a non-prosecution order, which is, for all intents and purposes, an acquittal judgment. Traditionally, these judgments are appealable by the Public Prosecutor's Office, as established by Article 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.).

The Legal Issue: Conflict Between Norms and Law No. 114/2024

The interpretative knot addressed by the Supreme Court arose from the amendments introduced by Law 9 August 2024, No. 114. This legislation amended, among others, Article 593, paragraph 2, of the c.p.p., establishing the non-appealability of judgments concerning crimes for which direct summons to trial is issued (those listed in Article 550 of the c.p.p.). The question that arose was: does this non-appealability also extend to acquittal judgments issued at the preliminary hearing when the crime falls under those subject to direct summons? In other words, did the new provisions of Article 593, paragraph 2, of the c.p.p. prevail over Article 428 of the c.p.p.?

The Ruling of Order No. 20257/2025 and Its Meaning

The Supreme Court, with Order No. 20257/2025, provided a clear and definitive answer, affirming the following principle:

The regime for appeals against an acquittal judgment issued at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing is governed exclusively by Article 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the provision of non-appealability established for judgments concerning crimes under Article 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law 9 August 2024, No. 114, does not apply.

This ruling, formulated by President G. Fidelbo and Rapporteur M. Ricciarelli, is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that Article 428 of the c.p.p. constitutes the special and exhaustive rule governing the appealability of acquittals issued at the preliminary hearing. Consequently, the non-appealability provision introduced by Law No. 114/2024 for trial judgments concerning crimes subject to direct summons (ex Article 550 c.p.p.) does not extend to or affect the appeal regime for decisions made during the preliminary hearing phase. This means that, even for crimes that could be dealt with by direct summons, a non-prosecution order remains appealable by the Public Prosecutor's Office.

**Normative Clarity:** The Order eliminates any interpretative doubt, reaffirming the specificity of Article 428 of the c.p.p.
**Procedural Guarantee:** It maintains the possibility for the prosecution to challenge an acquittal decision deemed unjust in the preliminary phase.
**Distinction of Phases:** It emphasises the clear separation and different functions of the procedural phases, each with its own specific appeal regime.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Practical Impact

Order No. 20257/2025 of the Supreme Court makes a significant contribution to legal certainty in criminal procedure. For legal professionals, and particularly for Public Prosecutors and defence lawyers, this ruling is crucial. It confirms that acquittal judgments issued by the G.U.P. are always appealable, regardless of the nature of the crime and the recent amendments to Article 593 of the c.p.p. concerning crimes subject to direct summons. It serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly understanding the specific rules governing the different phases of criminal proceedings and their interactions, thereby ensuring the proper protection of the rights and interests involved.

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Ми постійно стежимо за змінами в законодавстві та судовій практиці, пропонуючи актуальний аналіз та інноваційні рішення. Ми ділимося розвитком права, щоб сприяти більш усвідомленій правовій культурі.

Supreme Court, Order No. 20257/2025: Clarifications on the Appealability of Acquittals at the Preliminary Hearing

The Context: Preliminary Hearing and Acquittal Judgment

The Legal Issue: Conflict Between Norms and Law No. 114/2024

The Ruling of Order No. 20257/2025 and Its Meaning

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Practical Impact

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Останні статті

Військова юрисдикція у пекуляції: аналіз рішення №20317 від 2025 року

Європейський ордер на арешт та італійський вирок: рішення № 19696/2025 Касаційного суду

Домашнє насильство та неповнолітні: Рішення Касаційного суду № 20128/2025 переосмислює обтяжуючу обставину

Європейський ордер на арешт: Верховний касаційний суд щодо юрисдикції органу, що видав ордер (Рішення № 19671/2025)

Європейський ордер на арешт: Касаційний суд та важливість інформованої згоди (Cass. Pen. n. 19487/2025)

Адміністративне затримання іноземців: Рішення Касаційного суду № 18637 від 2025 року та судовий контроль

Продовження злочину та суддя з виконання вироку: ясність рішення Касаційного суду № 19390/2025

Адміністративне затримання та заява про притулок: обов'язок наводити доводи (постанова Верховного Суду № 18274 від 2025 року)

Компетенція судді з нагляду за виконанням покарань щодо застосування альтернативного домашнього арешту: Аналіз судового рішення № 18940/2025

Утримання іноземців в Албанії: Касаційний суд Італії роз’яснює питання щодо «побічного» утримання (рішення № 17510/2025)

Схожий контент

Категорії

Теги

Напишіть нам електронною поштою

Зателефонуйте нам

Бюро

Юридичні послуги

Команда

Контакти