Criminal Cassation, Order no. 12507/2025: art. 573 c.p.p. and appeal against the inadmissibility of the civil party's appeal

On April 1, 2025, the Court of Cassation, Section V, filed Order no. 12507, which sheds light again on a far from secondary issue: the protection of civil interests within criminal proceedings and the scope of related appeals. Under the presidency of L. P. and with the report and drafting by G. F., the Supreme Court was seized with the appeal filed by C. P. M. P., the civil party, against the order of the Court of Appeal of Trieste which had declared inadmissible his appeal filed "for civil effects only". The core of the reasoning revolves around art. 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the c.p.p. (Code of Criminal Procedure), introduced by Legislative Decree 150/2022 and dedicated precisely to the fate of civil appeals.

The principle affirmed by the Court

In matters of appeals, in the case of an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the order of inadmissibility of the appeal filed by the civil party for civil effects only, the provisions of art. 573, paragraph 1-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply, as it is a measure that, by preventing the judge from examining the reasons underlying the decision, is equivalent to the confirmation of the appealed judgment.

The maxim reiterates that when the Court of Appeal blocks the examination of the civil party's appeal, this is substantially equivalent to confirming the first-instance judgment. Consequently, the civil party can appeal to the Court of Cassation, invoking art. 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the c.p.p., just as they would if the second-instance judge had ruled on the merits. The Court, therefore, protects the effectiveness of the right to compensation and prevents procedural formalism from depriving the civil party of a degree of judgment.

From normative data to forensic practice

Art. 573 of the c.p.p., in its current wording, clearly distinguishes between appeals by the civil party "connected" to the criminal charge and appeals "for civil effects only". Paragraph 1-bis, introduced by the Cartabia reform, provides that an appeal to the Court of Cassation is always admissible against decisions of the appellate judge on civil interests. The order under review goes a step further: it extends protection even to cases where the appeal was not examined due to alleged inadmissibility.

The line of reasoning aligns with consistent precedents (Cass., Section Un., no. 38481/2023; Section V, no. 25048/2023) and with the constitutional principles of articles 24 and 111 of the Constitution, which require reasonable duration and full adversarial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court shields the civil party's position from potential conflict with art. 6 of the ECHR, guaranteeing them access to a court of legitimacy.

Operational implications for lawyers

• Preliminary assessment of the appeal: form must be taken care of, but a formal defect cannot prevent defense before the Court of Cassation.
• Attention to deadlines: the fifteen days provided for by art. 585 of the c.p.p., starting from notification, apply for appealing the order of inadmissibility.
• Articulation of grounds: it is necessary to challenge both the violation of procedural law (art. 591 c.p.p.) and, where possible, the misrepresentation of procedural facts.
• Synergy with independent civil action: the decision of the Supreme Court does not exclude the possibility of acting in civil proceedings pursuant to art. 75, paragraph 2, of the c.p.p., but allows for postponing this choice, avoiding forfeitures.

Conclusions

Order no. 12507/2025 is of strategic importance for those assisting victims of crimes who are primarily interested in economic compensation. By equating an order of inadmissibility with the confirmation of the judgment, the Court of Cassation safeguards a fundamental right: that of having one's claims for compensation evaluated, at least at the legitimacy stage. For operators in the field of corporate criminal law and criminal damages, the message is clear: the path of appeal remains open, even when the appeal is blocked before entering the merits.