Appeals and restorative justice: Cassation n. 14338/2025 clarifies the appealability of rejection orders

Restorative justice, introduced into our legal system by Legislative Decree 150/2022, aims to recompose the conflict between the offender and the victim through mediation processes. But what happens if the judge denies the defendant access to these programs? The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 14338/2025 offers a clear answer: such a denial can be appealed to the Court of Cassation along with the merits judgment, without distinction between crimes prosecutable upon complaint or ex officio. Below, we examine the scope of this principle and its implications for defence strategy.

The regulatory framework

Legislative Decree 150/2022 introduced Articles 129-bis and 129-ter into the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing "restorative justice programs." Access is subject to a request from one of the parties and the judge's review, who may reject it by order. Until now, the appeal fate of such a provision was uncertain, partly due to the silence of Article 568 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and some conflicting rulings (Cass. 6595/2024; 7266/2025).

The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation

In matters of appeals, the order rejecting the request for access to restorative justice programs, issued by the judge at the defendant's request, is appealable to the Court of Cassation along with the final judgment of the proceedings, without any distinction between crimes prosecutable upon complaint subject to withdrawal and crimes prosecutable ex officio.

The Supreme Court, referring to Article 42 of Legislative Decree 150/2022 and the principle of the exhaustiveness of appeal remedies, extends the appealability (i.e., the capacity of the provision to be appealed) to the rejection order. This is because:

• the decision affects a procedural right of the defendant constitutionally protected (Art. 24 of the Constitution);
• the legislator intended to encourage the use of restorative practices, considering them useful also for the purposes of Article 62, no. 6 of the Criminal Code (extenuating circumstance for reparation of damage);
• the different prosecution regime is not relevant, as the interest in mediation persists in both ex officio prosecutable crimes and those requiring a complaint.

The reference to the United Sections judgment 25080/2003 is interesting, which had already allowed immediate appeal against incidental provisions with "decisional content and definitive character" on procedural legal positions.

Practical implications for defence and prosecution offices

The ruling requires a review of procedural strategies:

• The defence will be able to combine both the judgment and the rejection order in a single appeal document, avoiding the risks of inadmissibility due to separate late filing.
• Public prosecutors will have to provide particularly accurate reasons for opposing the request for restorative justice, knowing that the Court of Cassation may review its legitimacy.
• Trial judges will have to account, in their decisions, for the adequate consideration of "the parties' interests, the victim's protection needs, and the dangerousness of the act," to prevent future challenges.

On the victims' side, this opens up the possibility of more effective involvement in mediation processes, even in proceedings for serious crimes, without fearing the loss of the right to complain.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 14338/2025 strengthens the role of restorative justice in criminal proceedings, ensuring full protection for the defendant's right to access it and at the same time outlining clear criteria for appealing any denial. The principle of procedural economy thus combines with that of effective defence, offering a linear and guaranteed path to assert one's rights before the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen how the trial courts will receive this warning, pending the legislator's definitive clarification of the exhaustiveness of appealable acts in this matter.