Suspension of Sentence and Civil Claims: The Court of Cassation's Clarifications with Ruling No. 20171 of 2025

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, "suspension of sentence" (messa alla prova) represents an institution of fundamental importance, offering an alternative path to traditional trials and promoting paths of rehabilitation and reparation. However, the implications of a positive outcome of this procedure on the civil party's claims for damages have often generated questions. The Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 20171 of 2025 (filed on 29/05/2025), has provided an essential clarification, precisely outlining the limits of civil condemnation in the absence of an assessment of the merits of the charge.

The Institution of Suspension of Sentence: A Path of Restorative Justice

Introduced into our legal system by Law No. 67 of 2014, the suspension of sentence (governed by Articles 464-bis et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure) allows the defendant to request the suspension of the proceedings for a determined period, during which they must perform community service, volunteer activities, or damage repair activities, in addition to undergoing a treatment program. A positive outcome of this path leads to the extinction of the crime, thus avoiding a conviction. It is a mechanism aimed at rehabilitation and social reintegration, while also alleviating the judicial burden.

The Issue of Civil Claims and the Court of Cassation's Ruling

The crucial point addressed by the Supreme Court in the case involving the defendant F. Gambarotto, with President F. Casa and Rapporteur A. Centonze, concerns the possibility of condemning the defendant to pay damages and legal costs to the civil party, despite the extinction of the crime due to the successful completion of the suspension of sentence. Ruling No. 20171/2025 partially annulled without referral the decision of the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Court of Padua of 03/12/2024, establishing a clear and unambiguous principle.

The declaration of extinction of the crime due to the positive outcome of the suspension of sentence, not being based on a complete assessment of the merits of the charge, prevents the condemnation of the defendant to pay damages and legal costs incurred by the constituted civil party.

This maxim is of paramount importance. The Court emphasizes that the extinction of the crime following the suspension of sentence does not derive from an in-depth analysis of the defendant's guilt or innocence. In other words, there is no "complete assessment of the merits of the charge." This means that the criminal judge, while declaring the crime extinguished, has not ascertained the defendant's civil liability for the alleged facts with the force of a criminal judgment. Consequently, they cannot issue a condemnation for damages or for the reimbursement of legal costs in favor of the civil party. This principle is linked to Article 538 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for condemnation to damages only in the case of a criminal conviction, thus presupposing an assessment of the merits that is lacking in the suspension of sentence.

Practical Implications and Protection of the Civil Party

This ruling does not leave the civil party unprotected. It simply means that, in such circumstances, the injured party must necessarily resort to the civil judge to obtain compensation for the damages suffered. The criminal proceedings, in this specific instance, cannot serve as a vehicle for civil condemnation, precisely because its conclusion through suspension of sentence has not resolved the issue of liability on the merits. Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs acquittal formulas, supports this interpretation: the extinction of the crime is a cause for non-punishability that is not equivalent to an acquittal on the merits, which would instead have preclusive effects also in civil proceedings. The Court of Cassation's decision aligns with previous similar rulings (such as No. 33277 of 2017) and reinforces the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, protecting the presumption of innocence of the defendant until there is full proof of responsibility.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 20171 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation offers a beacon of clarity on a delicate aspect of criminal procedural law. It reiterates that the positive outcome of the suspension of sentence, while extinguishing the crime, does not allow the criminal judge to rule on civil matters, precisely due to the absence of a complete assessment of the merits. This principle protects the defendant's defense guarantees and, at the same time, correctly directs the civil party towards the most appropriate venue – the civil judge – to assert their claims for damages. A fundamental ruling for legal professionals and for anyone involved in criminal proceedings that include the institution of suspension of sentence.