Suspension of Sentence after Rejection of Alternative Measure: An Interpretation of Cass. pen. no. 15683/2025

The ruling under review, issued by the First Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation on March 28, 2025 (filed April 22, 2025), addresses a crucial issue for defense practice: the relationship between the suspension of sentence execution under art. 656 c.p.p. and the subsequent (potential) suspension provided for by art. 1 of Law no. 199 of November 26, 2010. The case arose from the appeal of B. S., to whom the Supervisory Court had denied an alternative measure, after the execution had already been suspended by the Public Prosecutor's Office pursuant to the aforementioned art. 656. The Court of Appeal of Milan had rejected the request, and the Supreme Court confirms: a "second chance" of automatic suspension is not possible.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 656 c.p.p. and Law 199/2010

Art. 656 c.p.p. allows the Public Prosecutor to suspend the execution order for short prison sentences, pending the convicted person's request for an alternative measure (probation, ordinary home detention, semi-liberty). Law no. 199/2010, enacted to address prison overcrowding, introduces instead "extended" home detention for sentences up to 18 months, providing for the automatic suspension of the committal order if certain objective and subjective requirements are met.

• Remaining sentence up to 18 months;
• Absence of convictions for prohibitive crimes under art. 4-bis O.P.;
• Non-social dangerousness of the convicted person;
• Suitability of the indicated domicile.

The legislator's intent is different: while art. 656 c.p.p. protects the convicted person's right to request alternative measures, Law 199/2010 aims to reduce the prison population with an emergency measure. Ruling no. 15683/2025 falls precisely at the intersection of these provisions.

A convicted person who, after benefiting from the suspension of sentence execution under art. 656 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has had their request for an alternative measure to detention rejected by the supervisory court, cannot avail themselves of a further suspension of execution under art. 1 of Law no. 199 of November 26, 2010.

The ruling, clear in itself, excludes the layering of the two suspensions: once the "window" of art. 656 has been exhausted – culminating in rejection by the supervisory court – the convicted person must immediately execute the sentence. Otherwise, a coercive vacuum incompatible with the principle of certainty of punishment (art. 27 of the Constitution) would be created.

Court's Arguments and Consistent Precedents

The Panel refers to precedents no. 25039/2012 and no. 47859/2012, as well as decisions from 2019 and 2020 that had already established the same line, emphasizing that:

• the suspension under art. 656 c.p.p. is aimed at submitting a request for an alternative measure;
• the rejection of such request constitutes an updated assessment regarding the absence of merit prerequisites;
• art. 1 of Law 199/2010 cannot overturn the negative judgment just expressed, under penalty of an unreasonable extension of execution times.

The Court further emphasizes that Law 199/2010 grants the supervisory judge the verification in the execution phase, but does not intervene on the negative judgment already formed on the alternative request. For this reason, anyone who has exhausted – unsuccessfully – the procedure under art. 656 is precluded from any further automatic suspension.

Practical Implications for Defense

In light of this ruling, the defense counsel must:

• Assess with extreme accuracy the existence of the requirements for the alternative measure before requesting the suspension under art. 656 c.p.p.;
• Punctually document elements of adherence to treatment, avoiding rejections that would preclude any subsequent suspension;
• Examine alternative avenues, such as the request for optional deferral under art. 147 c.p., where serious health reasons exist.

Conclusions

With ruling no. 15683/2025, the Court of Cassation consolidates a rigorous approach to criminal execution: a second suspension of the committal order after the failure of the procedure under art. 656 c.p.p. is not admissible. The message is clear: defense strategy must focus on a timely and well-argued request for alternative measures, as "double suspensions" have no place in the current legal system.