Cass. pen. Judgment no. 15452/2025: Jurisdiction of the Execution Judge in Proceedings with Multiple Defendants

With decision no. 15452 of 20 March 2025 (filed 18 April 2025), the First Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation once again addresses the issue of the execution judge's jurisdiction when the appellate judgment concerned multiple defendants, establishing a principle of great practical interest for lawyers and legal professionals.

The Core of the Decision

The case originated from a trial with multiple defendants. On appeal, the extinction of the crime due to the defendant's death was declared for L. L., while the conviction of a co-defendant remained unchanged. The latter filed an execution incident, complaining of the Court of Appeal's lack of jurisdiction, arguing that since his position had not undergone any reform, it should have returned to the trial court. The Cassation Court rejects the appeal.

In proceedings with multiple defendants, the jurisdiction of the appellate judge to rule "in executivis" is affirmed, based on the principle of the unity of execution, not only with respect to those for whom the first-instance judgment was substantially reformed, but also with respect to those against whom the decision was confirmed, even when the substantial reform consists in the declaration of extinction of the crime due to the death of the offender.

The maxim reaffirms an orientation already expressed in similar previous rulings (Cass. nn. 10415/2010, 14686/2014, 48933/2019), emphasizing two pillars: the unity of execution and Article 665, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which designates the judge who issued the decision as the natural venue for the execution incident.

Legal and Jurisprudential Foundations

• Article 665, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: establishes the jurisdiction for the execution incident with the judge of the sentence, unless the sentence has been annulled.
• Article 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: governs the extinction of the crime due to the death of the offender, a ruling that, while affecting only the deceased defendant, entails a reform of the first-instance judgment.
• Principle of Unity of Execution: a jurisprudential development that avoids the fragmentation of execution proceedings, ensuring procedural economy and uniformity of judgment.

Referring to constitutional jurisprudence (Constitutional Court, judgment 150/1987) and various appellate rulings, the Court emphasizes that the death of one of the defendants does not break the link connecting the positions of the others, as the execution of the sentence remains a single and indivisible phase.

Practical Impacts for the Defense

The ruling offers valuable guidance to criminal defense lawyers:

• it avoids the risk of jurisdictional challenges destined to be rejected, resulting in a waste of time and resources;
• it clarifies that, in the execution phase, the competent forum remains that of the Court of Appeal that issued the decision, even when the position of one's client has not been modified;
• it allows all execution aspects – suspensions, consolidations, identity incidents – to be concentrated before a single judge, simplifying the defense strategy.

For the public prosecutor, the judgment facilitates the unified management of executive titles, reducing the circulation of documents between different offices and containing the risk of jurisdictional conflicts.

Conclusions

The Cassation Court, with judgment no. 15452/2025, confirms a solid and consistent line of reasoning: when an appeal results in a modification, even partial, of the first-instance judgment, the jurisdiction in executivis remains with the second-instance judge for all defendants. This choice favors the efficiency of criminal proceedings and legal certainty, offering legal professionals a point of reference that is now difficult to doubt.