Supreme Court, Section VI, judgment no. 14843/2025: criminal judgment and compensation for false testimony

With ruling no. 14843 of April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court returns to address the delicate relationship between criminal judgments and the assessment of damages in civil proceedings. At the center of the case is G. M., acquitted on appeal of the crime of false testimony due to the non-punishability provision under art. 384 of the Italian Criminal Code (fear of harming oneself or a close relative). The Supreme Court, while confirming the acquittal, clarifies that this outcome does not extinguish potential civil liability towards those who have suffered prejudice from the false statements.

The case and the procedural path

The defendant had been convicted in the first instance for making false statements in a criminal proceeding. The Court of Appeal of Ancona, recognizing the non-punishability provision of art. 384 of the Italian Criminal Code, had acquitted him. The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the judgment, while the injured party, already harmed by the statements, complained about the impossibility of asserting their claims for compensation.
The Supreme Court annulled the contested judgment without referral, but took the opportunity to clarify the scope and limits of art. 652 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure – the rule governing the effect of an acquittal in a criminal proceeding on civil proceedings.

Acquittal due to non-punishability under art. 384 of the Criminal Code - Effect of judgment in civil proceedings - Exclusion - Reasons. The non-punishability provision under art. 384, paragraph one, of the Criminal Code, by excluding punishability for the crime of false testimony, does not negate its nature as a civil wrong and, if damage has resulted, the consequent compensation obligations actionable before the civil judge, as the provisions of art. 652 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply in this regard.

The maxim highlights a key aspect: acquittal "because the act is not punishable" is not equivalent to a ruling that excludes the historical fact or its civil wrongfulness. The need to protect the family – which underlies art. 384 of the Italian Criminal Code – is confined solely to the criminal sphere, leaving intact any compensation obligations arising from the conduct.

The (limited) effect of the criminal judgment under art. 652 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The legislator links the binding effect of a criminal judgment only to cases of acquittal "because the fact does not exist," "does not constitute a crime," or "the defendant did not commit it." Conversely, acquittal due to non-punishability, such as the family necessity under art. 384 of the Italian Criminal Code, does not produce preclusive effects in subsequent civil litigation. Consequently:

• the civil judge can ascertain the existence of false testimony for compensation purposes;
• the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff, but the criminal judgment constitutes a relevant factual element;
• the prohibition under art. 652 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor the principle of "non-contestation" of the fact, applies.

The Court aligns with previous rulings (Cass. no. 23144/2018; no. 5699/2022) that already limited the automatic transfer of criminal judgments to civil proceedings, in compliance with the principle of autonomy of proceedings and art. 24 of the Italian Constitution, which protects the right to compensation.

Practical implications for victims and witnesses

The ruling is of considerable interest to legal professionals, as it:

• strengthens the protection of those who suffer damages from false statements, allowing them to take civil action despite the perpetrator's criminal acquittal;
• emphasizes the need for witnesses to also consider the potential civil implications of their conduct, as they cannot rely on a "saving" criminal acquittal;
• imposes a targeted evidentiary due diligence on lawyers, as the civil judge may disregard elements not crystallized by the criminal judgment.

Nor should the coordination with European jurisprudence on "fair trial" (art. 6 ECHR) be overlooked: the dual criminal-civil track does not violate the ne bis in idem principle, as the proceedings have different purposes.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court ruling no. 14843/2025 reiterates a principle of great practical utility: the special non-punishability provision under art. 384 of the Italian Criminal Code protects family values at the criminal level, but does not erase the civil wrong arising from false testimony. Those who have suffered patrimonial or non-patrimonial damage can therefore seek compensation without being hindered by the criminal judgment. Once again, the Court confirms the autonomy of proceedings and the compensatory function of civil law, reminding us that the community's interest in procedural truth deserves protection even outside the criminal courtroom.