Appeal to the Supreme Court by the Civil Party: Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen. no. 15248/2025

Can the civil party appeal to the Supreme Court a decision that does not address the merits of the crime but affects its compensation expectations? The Court of Cassation, Section II, with ruling no. 15248 of April 17, 2025 (hearing of April 2), has provided a clear answer, emphasizing the effective protection of victims in criminal proceedings. Let's examine what it established and its practical implications for lawyers and interested parties.

The Regulatory Framework and the Court's Interpretation

Articles 568 and 576 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern appeals, granting the civil party the power to appeal to the Supreme Court against the parts of the judgment concerning the civil action. However, it remains controversial whether this standing exists even when the decision is exclusively procedural in nature, such as annulment due to territorial incompetence. The judgment under review resolves the issue affirmatively, also referencing constitutional jurisprudence that requires the guarantee of an effective remedy against acts that violate fundamental rights.

• Concrete and current interest in acting
• Irreparable prejudice arising from the measure
• Connection between procedural ruling and civil prejudice

The Risk of Statute of Limitations as Irreparable Prejudice

In this specific case, the Court of Appeal of Bologna had annulled the conviction judgment due to territorial incompetence, thereby causing the proceedings to "regress" and leading to the cancellation of the provisional sum awarded in the first instance to the civil party O. S. The procedural regression, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, exposed the crime charged to L. M. to a concrete risk of becoming time-barred, depriving the civil party of protection in the criminal proceedings. Hence, the need to recognize the admissibility of the appeal.

In matters of appeals, an appeal to the Supreme Court by the civil party against a procedural judgment is admissible if the latter has been irretrievably harmed in its positions by the challenged measure, possessing a concrete interest in its removal. (Case in which the Court held that the civil party was entitled to appeal the decision which, due to the alleged territorial incompetence of the first judge, had annulled the conviction pronounced by him, with the consequent nullification of the civil ruling and regression of the proceedings, on the grounds of the existence of the concrete risk of the crime's statute of limitations expiring, which would have resulted in the loss of protection of the civil party's rights in criminal proceedings). Comment: The maxim emphasizes two key concepts: the civil party's interest in acting and the causal link between the procedural measure and the harm. A generic dissatisfaction is not enough; it must be demonstrated that the decision immediately and definitively affects the right to compensation. The risk of the statute of limitations, in this sense, constitutes damage that can no longer be remedied by future actions, justifying the exceptional opening of the legitimacy remedy.

Operational Insights for Defense Counsel

The ruling offers some important guidelines:

• Promptly assess the regression of the proceedings and the statute of limitations periods;
• Document the concrete prejudice (e.g., loss of the provisional sum or delay of the civil action);
• In the appeal, refer to Articles 568 and 576 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as constitutional jurisprudence on the effectiveness of protection;
• Argue the irreparability of the damage, avoiding purely abstract reasoning.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 15248/2025 marks a further step towards a "substantive" conception of the civil party's appeal: the filter of concrete interest, far from restricting the right of defense, allows the appeal to be filed only when the procedural decision entails an actual and irreversible harm. An approach that balances procedural economy and the protection of victims, offering legal professionals a certain parameter for evaluating the advisability of appealing to the Supreme Court.