Appeal to the Supreme Court and Perjury: Analysis of Judgment no. 18412 of 2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation serve as a beacon for the interpretation and application of law. The recent judgment no. 18412, filed on May 15, 2025, fits into this context, offering significant clarification on appeals to the Supreme Court and, in particular, on the deductibility of specific procedural violations related to the crime of perjury. This decision, which saw S. M. as the defendant and Councillor A. C. as the rapporteur, is of fundamental importance for anyone operating or involved in the criminal justice system, precisely outlining the boundaries within which certain non-compliance can be raised in cassation proceedings.

The Scope of Judgment no. 18412 of 2025: When a Violation is Not Grounds for Appeal to the Supreme Court

The central issue addressed by the Supreme Court concerned the possibility of alleging, pursuant to Article 606, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the failure of the judge to transmit the case files to the Public Prosecutor's Office in case of suspicion of perjury. Articles 207 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure oblige the judge to transmit the case files to the Public Prosecutor when there are indications of a crime, such as perjury. However, the judgment ruled that the violation of these provisions cannot be invoked as grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court. Why?

In matters of appeal to the Supreme Court, the violation of Articles 207 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting from the judge's failure to transmit the case files to the public prosecutor in case of perjury, cannot be argued in terms of non-compliance with a procedural rule, pursuant to Art. 606, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as these are procedural rules not sanctioned by nullity, inadmissibility, or forfeiture.

This key passage of the judgment, presided over by Dr. G. L., highlights a cardinal principle of our criminal procedural system: not all non-compliance with procedural rules are grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Article 606, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for appeals for "non-compliance with or erroneous application of procedural law established under penalty of nullity, inadmissibility, or forfeiture." The Court therefore clarified that Articles 207 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while establishing an obligation for the judge, do not provide for any of these procedural sanctions if the obligation is not met. In other words, the failure to transmit the case files to the Public Prosecutor for perjury does not invalidate the ongoing criminal proceedings, nor does it render the acquired evidence unusable, nor does it lead to the inadmissibility of acts or forfeiture of a procedural right. It is, therefore, a violation without an express procedural sanction that can be invoked before the Supreme Court under Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The System of Procedural Sanctions and Grounds for Appeal

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is essential to recall the system of procedural sanctions in Italian criminal law. The legislator has provided for different types of defects that can invalidate procedural acts:

• Nullity: Defects affecting the form or substance of acts, distinguished into general nullities (Art. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and special nullities (provided for specific acts). Nullities can be absolute, intermediate, or relative, with different regimes of deductibility and validation.
• Inadmissibility: Refers to the inability of an act or evidence to be the basis for a decision, often resulting from the violation of evidentiary prohibitions (Art. 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
• Inadmissibility: Refers to the impossibility of performing an act or filing an appeal due to the lack of formal or substantive requirements.
• Forfeiture: The loss of the power to perform a procedural act due to failure to meet a peremptory deadline.

The judgment in question reiterates that only violations of procedural rules that expressly entail one of these sanctions can be invoked before the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 606, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This principle aims to ensure the stability of the proceedings and to prevent purely formal defects, without direct impact on the validity or usability of acts, from leading to the annulment of judgments.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Citizens

This ruling has significant practical implications. For lawyers, it means a further confirmation of the need for a rigorous analysis of the grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court. It is not enough that a procedural rule has been violated; it is essential that such violation is sanctioned by nullity, inadmissibility, or forfeiture, as required by Art. 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Raising grounds for appeal based on mere non-compliance with Articles 207 or 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would, in light of this judgment, be destined for inadmissibility. For citizens involved in criminal proceedings, the judgment underscores the importance of relying on expert professionals who can discern valid grounds for appeal, avoiding wasted time and resources on unfounded appeals. Justice, while respecting individual guarantees, always seeks a balance between the protection of rights and the need for procedural certainty and speed.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 18412 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, presided over by G. L. and reported by A. C., represents a significant piece in criminal jurisprudence. It clearly reiterates that an appeal to the Supreme Court cannot be a tool to contest every single procedural non-compliance, but is limited to cases where the law provides for a specific sanction (nullity, inadmissibility, or forfeiture). This principle strengthens the coherence of the procedural system and calls for greater precision from legal operators in formulating their defenses and appeals, ensuring that appeals are based on defects that are genuinely relevant to the legal system.