Criminal justice, double questioning if the prosecutor makes other investigations

Two preliminary interrogations are necessary if the public prosecutor, after the first one has taken place, carries out another act of investigation. This is clarified by the Court of Cassation, ruling 6185 of the Sixth Criminal Section filed yesterday, interpreting one of the key measures of the Nordio Law, the need for a preliminary interrogation before the application of the precautionary measure, in the case in question the interdiction from public office in a corruption investigation.

In the case that came before the Supreme Court it happened that the interrogation preliminary to the issuance of the measure of interdiction from exercising a public office took place on 7 July 2025 and that, after it had taken place, on 18 July 2025, the public prosecutor carried out a further investigative measure, consisting of the interrogation by a co-defendant, which was then lodged with the clerk of the court competent to decide together with the other evidence already lodged in support of the request for the application of the precautionary measure. The suspension from public service was subsequently adopted by the Preliminary Investigation Judge in the order issued on 24 August 2025, which was subsequently appealed against.

The Court of Cassation recalls that the Nordio law refers to the discipline of proceedings for offences against the public administration, where it was already established that the application of the measure of suspension from exercising a public office or service had to be preceded by the interrogation of the person under preliminary investigation.

The interdiction, the judgment emphasises, must be preceded by the deposit of all the documents underlying the request for the application of the measure in order to allow the suspect to take copies of them and to prepare an adequate defence, with the consequence that, if after its performance, and before the judge issues his order the public prosecutor attaches further acts of investigation, whether or not they depend on the statements made by the suspect, the judge must proceed to a new interrogation, which must also be preceded by the availability of the acts to the suspect and his defence counsel, the absence of which determines nullity for breach of the right of defence.

Irrelevant then, the Court of Cassation further states, is the assessment of the decisiveness of the elements of the investigation that have occurred since the interrogation took place, 'since this is a violation of the law that derives from an express provision of the law and that, in any case, is based on the right of the person being questioned to have access to all the documents filed by the public prosecutor in support of the precautionary request'.