Criminal Cassation no. 15263/2025: nullity of the appeal judgment for reasoning referring to a different defendant

When the Court of Appeal copy-pastes arguments intended for other defendants, the judgment is destined to fall. This is clarified by the Supreme Court, VI Section, with decision no. 15263 filed on April 17, 2025, which annuls without referral the ruling of the Court of Appeal of L'Aquila of June 3, 2024, against G. P. This case provides an opportunity to revisit a key principle: the reasoning must be personal, logical, and congruent, under penalty of the radical invalidity of the entire measure.

The reference regulatory framework

The cornerstones are well known:

• art. 125, para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.): obligation to provide reasons for judicial acts;
• art. 546, letter e) of the c.p.p.: the judgment must contain "the concise statement of the reasons";
• art. 606, letter e) of the c.p.p.: appeal to the Court of Cassation for lack of, contradiction in, or manifest illogicality of the reasoning;
• art. 130 of the c.p.p.: correction of material errors, allowed only for typos or purely formal omissions.

Even previously (Cass. 17510/2018; 1088/2010), jurisprudence had affirmed that reasoning "per relationem" to different subjects entails absolute nullity, but judgment 15263/2025 offers new clarifications on the boundary between material error and structural defect.

The Court's decision

The appeal judgment that includes reasoning relating to another defendant is null and void due to absolute lack of reasoning, even if not non-existent, and therefore not amendable through the material error correction procedure referred to in art. 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is instead reserved for rectifying formal errors or omissions that do not determine nullity and do not affect the substantial content of the measure, so that, if the invalidity is timely raised through an appeal, it must be annulled without referral for the renewal of the entire second-instance judgment.

The Panel first clarifies that "wrong" reasoning is not non-existent but is irrelevant with respect to the defendant's position: the necessary logical-factual link between the evidence and the person judged is missing. Consequently:

• it is not a simple slip of the pen: the error overwhelms the entire argumentative process;
• it cannot be remedied by correction pursuant to art. 130 of the c.p.p., as the latter is limited to mere typos that do not affect the merits;
• if the defect is raised in the appeal, the only way is annulment without referral and renewal of the second-instance judgment.

The Court, referring to constitutional jurisprudence on the obligation to provide reasons (judgment no. 85/1995), emphasizes the guarantee function of art. 125 of the c.p.p.: adequate disclosure of the reasons leads to both the control by the parties and the legitimacy control by the Court of Cassation.

Operational implications for lawyers and judges

For defense attorneys, the ruling represents a strong procedural tool:

• it invites vigilance regarding "copy-pasting" in merits judgments, especially in cumulative proceedings;
• it prompts timely raising of the ground for appeal, as the legitimacy judgment remains the only forum to assert absolute nullity;
• it recalls that the correction of material error cannot be used ex post facto to "patch up" deficient reasoning.

On the judges' side, the message is equally clear: personalized reasoning is not optional, even in the presence of overlapping evidentiary frameworks. The risk is to nullify years of proceedings and have to repeat the entire appeal judgment.

Practical consequences and final reflections

Judgment 15263/2025 reinforces a consolidated but still relevant trend in the era of digital files and "standardized" reasoning. The principle of personalization safeguards not only the rights of the defendant but also the efficiency of the system: correct reasoning the first time avoids recourse to a new trial, with further expenditure of time and resources. For law firms assisting defendants or civil parties, monitoring the logical-legal coherence of the reasoning therefore remains a strategic priority.