Order of inadmissibility of the civil party: the Criminal Court of Cassation n. 10079/2025 clarifies the limits of abnormality

With ruling no. 10079 of January 9, 2025 (filed March 13, 2025), the Sixth Section of the Court of Cassation has once again addressed the issue, which is far from marginal, of the compatibility between an autonomous civil action and the constitution of a civil party in criminal proceedings. The case originated from an order by the Court of Benevento which had denied a victim the possibility of constituting themselves as a civil party, deeming decisive the fact that the same individual had already initiated a compensation lawsuit before the civil judge. The interested party appealed to the Court of Cassation, complaining of the "abnormality" of the measure.

The procedural case and the Court's observations

The Court, presided over by E. A. and reported by D. T., qualified the contested order as not abnormal. While acknowledging its potential conflict with articles 74 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judges highlighted that it was issued within the scope of a typical power of the criminal judge and, above all, did not create an irreversible stalemate: the right to compensation can be pursued in the civil court already chosen by the injured party.

What is meant by an "abnormal" measure

According to case law (Cass. SS.UU. no. 5307/2008; no. 20569/2018), an act is abnormal when it radically exceeds the recognized power or causes a paralysis of the proceedings without any means of recourse. The ruling under comment clarifies that this assessment must be conducted "on a systemic level" and not limited to immediate effects. In other words, one must look at the overall procedural architecture: if there is a space elsewhere to assert the claim, abnormality does not exist.

Practical implications for those seeking damages

The decision offers some operational insights for lawyers and victims:

• evaluate ex ante the opportunity to choose the civil or criminal court, avoiding duplications that expose to procedural exceptions;
• remember that Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the waiver of a pending civil action in order to then constitute oneself as a civil party, but this option must be exercised before the opening of the trial;
• in case of rejection of the constitution, verify if the measure is truly abnormal or if it is preferable to proceed in civil court, containing time and costs;
• do not overlook the impact on the statute of limitations, which remains suspended in criminal proceedings but continues to run in civil proceedings.

The order by which the judge, due to the prior exercise of the action in civil proceedings, does not admit the constitution of a civil party in criminal proceedings is not abnormal, as the measure, although illegitimate, is taken in the exercise of an attributed power and does not determine a procedural stalemate devoid of remedies for the exercise of the compensation action, which can be maintained in civil court. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that the verification of the functional abnormality of the act must be conducted on a systemic level and not, instead, limited to its direct and immediate effects).
Comment: the maxim summarizes the core of the decision. The Court distinguishes between mere illegitimacy and abnormality, reiterating that the latter occurs only when the act definitively blocks the right of action. If the injured party still has the civil lawsuit, protection is not lost. It follows that the abnormality filter cannot be transformed into a tool for "ordinary" appeal of every unfavorable measure.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 10079/2025 consolidates an approach that aims to preserve the balance between the two proceedings, avoiding overlaps and instrumentalizations. For legal practitioners, it is essential to plan the compensation strategy from the outset, considering the timing, costs, and advantages of each forum. An order of inadmissibility is not in itself a "sentence" of loss of compensation, but an invitation – albeit forced – to continue in the chosen venue. Correct advice from the moment of the damaging event therefore remains the best guarantee of full protection.