Immediate Judgment and Assessments of the Minor's Personality: Cassation Ordinance 20236/2025

The Italian judicial system, especially when dealing with minors, is imbued with peculiarities and guarantees aimed at protecting the superior interest of the young person involved. Every measure, every procedural phase, must be carefully calibrated so as not to prejudice the path of growth and re-education. It is in this context that the important clarification offered by the Court of Cassation with its ordinance no. 20236 of May 6, 2025 (filed on May 30, 2025) fits in, addressing a delicate issue relating to immediate judgment in juvenile criminal proceedings and the role of assessments of the minor's personality.

The Context: Immediate Judgment and Juvenile Proceedings

Juvenile criminal proceedings differ profoundly from ordinary proceedings, emphasizing the recovery and re-education of the minor. This translates into greater procedural flexibility and an emphasis on personality assessments, essential elements for understanding the socio-psychological context of the young defendant. Immediate judgment, an alternative procedure for cases with clear evidence, must always take into account the need to protect the minor in the juvenile context.

The case examined by the Cassation involved a Preliminary Investigation Judge (GIP) of the Juvenile Court of Bologna rejecting a request for immediate judgment. The peculiarity was that the GIP, simultaneously with the rejection, ordered the Public Prosecutor (P.M.) to carry out assessments of the minor's personality, as provided for by Article 9 of Presidential Decree 22 September 1988, no. 448 (Provisions on criminal proceedings against minor defendants). The question put to the Supreme Court was whether such a measure could be considered "abnormal," meaning atypical and capable of blocking the proceedings.

The Cassation's Ruling and Its Profound Meaning

In the context of juvenile proceedings, the measure by which the preliminary investigation judge, seized with a request for immediate judgment, rejects the request while simultaneously ordering the public prosecutor to carry out the assessments of the minor's personality referred to in art. 9 of Presidential Decree 22 September 1988, no. 448, is not abnormal. (In the reasoning, the Court highlighted that the public prosecutor is not obliged to carry out the requested assessments and that the denial of access to the procedure falls within the powers granted by law to the judge and does not create a procedural stalemate, as the public prosecutor can proceed in the ordinary manner).

The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, clarified that the GIP's measure is not "abnormal" at all. Abnormality, in procedural law, occurs when an act deviates so far from the rules as to block the proceedings or cause an unjustified regression. The Supreme Court excluded abnormality for several reasons:

• The rejection of immediate judgment falls within the GIP's discretionary powers, who assesses the legal prerequisites.
• The request to the P.M. for personality assessments (art. 9 Presidential Decree 448/1988) is not an obligation for the P.M. to carry them out immediately, nor does it bind their choices. The P.M. can still proceed in the ordinary manner.
• No procedural stalemate occurs. The P.M. retains full autonomy, being able to proceed with the ordinary procedure, which includes the preliminary hearing, or with other alternative procedures.

This decision reinforces the importance of personality assessments of the minor, which are the cornerstone of juvenile proceedings. They provide the judge with a complete picture of the young person, their family and social context, and their re-educational needs, allowing for the application of criminal measures that are not only punitive but also formative and rehabilitative.

Protection of the Minor and Flexibility of the Judicial System

The Cassation's ruling confirms the core principles of juvenile criminal law. The refusal of immediate judgment and the request for further personality assessments, while not binding on the P.M., represent an act of caution and an affirmation of the need not to sacrifice the completeness of the investigation in the name of speed. Juvenile justice favors an individualized approach, where in-depth knowledge of the minor prevails over the mere schematic application of rules. This is in line with European and international directives that promote a justice system tailored to minors, where understanding the causes of deviant behavior and seeking re-educational paths are priorities.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Juvenile Law Professionals

Ordinance no. 20236/2025 of the Court of Cassation offers important guidance for juvenile law professionals. It confirms that the GIP has broad discretionary powers in assessing requests for immediate judgment and that their decision to deepen personality assessments of the minor, pursuant to Article 9 of Presidential Decree 448/1988, cannot be considered an abnormal act. On the contrary, such a choice is configured as a reasoned exercise of jurisdictional function, aimed at ensuring a fairer and more targeted justice for young defendants. For professionals, this ruling is a reminder to always consider the complexity of juvenile cases and to value all available investigative and evaluative tools to build a procedural path truly oriented towards the superior interest of the minor.