Minor Immediate Judgment: The PM's Assessment of Educational Prejudice (Cass. Pen. n. 17797/2025)

The Italian judicial system, in proceedings involving minors, balances the ascertainment of truth with the protection of the young person's educational needs. The juvenile criminal process has peculiarities, including "immediate judgment," an accelerated procedure that, for young people, must consider the risk of serious prejudice to their development. The Court of Cassation has ruled on this with judgment no. 17797 of 23 April 2025, providing a crucial interpretative clarification.

Immediate Judgment and the Minor's Interest

Immediate judgment (artt. 453 ss. c.p.p.), also applicable in juvenile proceedings (D.P.R. n. 448/1988), allows for skipping the preliminary hearing. However, art. 25, paragraph 2-ter, D.P.R. n. 448/1988 prohibits such a request if there is serious prejudice to the minor's educational needs, in line with the principle of the "best interests of the child." The method of assessing such prejudice, especially regarding the Public Prosecutor's obligation to initiate specific investigations (ex art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988), has generated uncertainty.

Judgment no. 17797/2025: The Role of the Public Prosecutor

The Supreme Court, with Judge D'Andrea A. as rapporteur, intervened to resolve these doubts, declaring the appeal of the GIP of the Juvenile Court of Bologna inadmissible. The judgment clarifies whether the Public Prosecutor is required to conduct investigations into the minor's personality (art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988) before requesting immediate judgment. The core principle is expressed in the following maxim:

In matters of juvenile proceedings, the assessment of whether there is serious prejudice to the minor's educational needs, which obstructs the request for immediate judgment ex art. 25, paragraph 2-ter, d.P.R. 22 September 1988, n. 448, is entrusted to the public prosecutor, based on a prognostic judgment based on the state of the proceedings, as the latter is not required to activate, for this purpose, the investigative tool provided for in art. 9 of the aforementioned d.P.R.

This ruling is fundamental: the decision on serious educational prejudice rests with the PM and is based on the elements already present in the file ("allo stato degli atti" - based on the state of the proceedings). The PM is not obliged to conduct further specific investigations into the minor's personality (art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988) before requesting immediate judgment. It is configured as a "prognostic judgment" based on the available information.

Balancing Efficiency and Protection

Judgment no. 17797/2025 emphasizes the Public Prosecutor's discretion in the preliminary assessment. This approach balances two needs:

• Procedural Efficiency: Accelerating justice.
• Protection of the Minor: Shielding the young person from procedures potentially harmful to their educational path.

The PM's decision, even if based "allo stato degli atti," requires careful reasoning. The minor's defense, through their lawyer, retains the right to object, highlighting any educational prejudice and protecting the young person's interests.

Conclusions: Clarity in Juvenile Criminal Law

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 17797/2025 offers decisive guidance for legal professionals. It clarifies the boundaries and responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor in juvenile criminal proceedings, reiterating that the assessment of serious educational prejudice for immediate judgment is a prognostic judgment "allo stato degli atti." This balances the protection of the minor with the need for procedural speed. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to ensuring the best possible assistance to the minors involved, always with a view to their best interests.