Inadmissibility of the appeal due to uncensored prescription: commentary on Cass. pen. n. 11237/2025

With ruling no. 11237 of January 20, 2025 (filed March 20, 2025), the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation rejected, declaring it inadmissible, the appeal filed by the defendant D. T. against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, which had already declared the appeal inadmissible. The case revolves around a single ground: the failure to acknowledge the statute of limitations for the crime that had matured by the appellate stage. The ruling provides a valuable opportunity to take stock of an issue that daily concerns criminal lawyers and consultants: the relationship between grounds for inadmissibility of an appeal and the judge's power-duty to acknowledge the statute of limitations.

The core of the ruling

The Court of Cassation reiterates that when the Court of Appeal declares an appeal inadmissible pursuant to art. 591, paragraph 1, letters a), b), or c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), and such declaration is not specifically challenged, the appeal to the Court of Cassation cannot be transformed into a "vehicle" to assert the extinction of the crime due to the statute of limitations. The initial defect of admissibility "covers" any further issue.

An appeal to the Court of Cassation is inadmissible if it alleges, on a single ground, the extinction of the crime due to the statute of limitations that matured before the judgment, which was not acknowledged by the lower court, in cases where the inadmissibility of the appeal has been declared pursuant to art. 591, paragraph 1, letters a), b), c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such declaration has not been challenged in any way.

In simple terms, the Court states that the "door" to the Court of Cassation remains closed if one does not first demonstrate that the appeal was admissible. In the absence of this premise, even the argument of the statute of limitations, however relevant, falls by the wayside.

The regulatory framework: art. 591 and art. 129 c.p.p.

The decision falls at the intersection of two fundamental provisions:

• Art. 591 c.p.p.: identifies the grounds for inadmissibility of an appeal, including non-compliance with deadlines, lack of specific grounds, or lack of special power of attorney.
• Art. 129 c.p.p.: requires the judge to declare ex officio grounds for non-punishability (including the statute of limitations) at any stage and level of the proceedings, provided that it is *possible* to proceed on the merits.

However, when the appeal is deemed inadmissible, the proceedings do not continue on the merits: the judge cannot (and must not) enter into a substantive examination, because the procedural prerequisite for exercising the power under art. 129 is missing. Hence the logical compatibility between the principle under comment and the obligation to acknowledge the statute of limitations ex officio.

Practical implications for the defense

The ruling sends a clear message to defense counsel:

• paying attention to the form and deadlines of the appeal is essential: a formal defect can nullify any substantive strategy, even a statute of limitations that has already matured;
• in the event of a declaration of inadmissibility, it is necessary to challenge it precisely before the Court of Cassation, otherwise it will be impossible to raise other grounds;
• the defense strategy must include checking the statute of limitations dates from the appellate stage onwards, avoiding deferring the issue solely to the court of last resort.

It should not be forgotten that the Court refers to consistent precedents (Cass. 45763/2018) and, above all, to the principle expressed by the United Sections in ruling 12602/2016, indicating a consolidated trend that limits procedural "shortcuts."

Conclusions

Cass. n. 11237/2025 confirms a rigorous approach: the statute of limitations cannot be used as a tool to circumvent the inadmissibility of an appeal. The defense counsel is called upon to be precise both in the grounds and in the timeliness of the filings, under penalty of the irrevocability of the judgment. For legal professionals, the ruling serves as a reminder that the harmony between procedural and substantive norms only works if the "notes" of admissibility are respected: otherwise, even the guarantee institution of the statute of limitations remains silent.