Criminal Cassation No. 13806/2025: Community Service and the Convicted Person's Duty to Act

Judgment No. 13806 of March 13, 2025 (filed April 8, 2025) by the Court of Cassation, First Section, offers a decisive clarification on the functioning of the substitute penalty of community service, an institution increasingly used following the Cartabia reform. With this ruling, the Court rejects the appeal of G. L., confirming the revocation of the alternative measure ordered by the Court of Massa due to the defendant's unjustified inertia. Below, we analyze the judges' reasoning, the regulatory references, and the operational implications for criminal law professionals.

Regulatory Framework

Community service is governed by Article 20-bis of the Italian Criminal Code (c.p.), referred to by Articles 54-bis and 188 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), and, for the execution phase, by Article 63 of Law 689/1981. The judgment also refers to Article 661, paragraph 1, of the c.p. in stating the convicted person's duty to comply with the judicial decision.

• Notification to the convicted person of an enforceable copy of the judgment;
• An order to report within a specified period to the External Criminal Enforcement Office (UEPE);
• No provision for further procedural steps to be taken by the judicial or administrative authority.

The Maxim and Its Meaning

In matters of substitute community service, the convicted person, after receiving a copy of the judgment and an order to report to the external criminal enforcement office, has the duty to take action to initiate the execution procedure, as no further steps are required of state bodies. (Case concerning the revocation of the substitute penalty following the ascertained and unjustified inertia on the part of the convicted person).

Comment: The Court reiterates a principle of responsibility: the State offers an alternative to imprisonment but expects diligent behavior from the individual. Inertia, even if due to mere negligence, undermines the trust inherent in the measure and justifies revocation pursuant to Article 20-bis, paragraph 7, of the c.p. The execution judge is not required to prompt the convicted person or to substitute their initiative.

Comparison with Previous Case Law

The decision aligns with previous rulings cited (Cass. No. 15861/2021 and No. 9295/2025), in which the Supreme Court had already ruled out the need for the UEPE or the Public Prosecutor's Office to "chase" the convicted person. This orientation is based on the principle of self-responsibility, also valued by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment in Scoppola v. Italy, 2009) regarding alternative measures.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Clients

In light of the judgment, it is essential for lawyers to:

• Promptly inform the client of the strict deadline for reporting to the UEPE;
• Advise sending a request for an appointment via certified email (PEC) to demonstrate compliance;
• Request a copy of the UEPE report to monitor the assignment process to community service;
• Evaluate any appeal only in the presence of documented force majeure.

For convicted individuals, the lesson is clear: wasting time means risking the substitution of the alternative sanction with the original custodial sentence, with immediate effects on personal liberty.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 13806/2025 consolidates a rigorous but consistent approach with the rationale of substitute penalties: to promote social reintegration by making the convicted person responsible. Those who opt for community service must take charge of it personally, without waiting for further prompts from the State. For criminal law practitioners, this necessitates a proactive defense strategy, aimed at preventing a simple delay from turning into an irreversible revocation.