Criminal Cassation No. 13806/2025: Community Service and the Convicted Person's Duty to Initiate
Judgment No. 13806 of March 13, 2025 (filed April 8, 2025) by the Court of Cassation, First Section, offers a decisive clarification on the functioning of the substitute penalty of community service, an institution increasingly used following the Cartabia reform. With this ruling, the Court rejects the appeal of G. L., confirming the revocation of the alternative measure ordered by the Court of Massa due to the unjustified inertia of the defendant. Below, we analyze the judges' reasoning, the regulatory references, and the operational implications for criminal law professionals.
Regulatory Framework
Community service is governed by Article 20-bis of the Criminal Code, referred to by Articles 54-bis and 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, for the execution phase, by Article 63 of Law 689/1981. The judgment also refers to Article 661, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code, which establishes the convicted person's obligation to comply with the judicial decision.
- Notification to the convicted person of an enforceable copy of the judgment;
- An order to appear within a specified period at the External Criminal Enforcement Office (UEPE);
- No provision for further procedural steps by the judicial or administrative authority.
The Ruling and Its Meaning
In the context of substitute community service, the convicted person, after receiving a copy of the judgment and an order to appear at the external criminal enforcement office, has the duty to take action to initiate the execution procedure, as no further steps are required of state bodies. (Case concerning the revocation of the substitute penalty following the ascertained and unjustified inertia on the part of the convicted person).
Commentary: The Court reiterates a principle of responsibility: the State offers an alternative to imprisonment but expects diligent behavior from the individual concerned. Inertia, even if due to mere negligence, undermines the trust inherent in the measure and justifies revocation pursuant to Article 20-bis, paragraph 7, of the Criminal Code. The execution judge is not obliged to prompt the convicted person or to substitute their initiative.
Comparison with Previous Case Law
The decision aligns with previous rulings cited (Cass. No. 15861/2021 and No. 9295/2025), in which the Supreme Court had already excluded that the UEPE or the Public Prosecutor's Office should "chase" the convicted person. This orientation is based on the principle of self-responsibility, also valued by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment Scoppola v. Italy, 2009) regarding alternative measures.
Practical Implications for Lawyers and Clients
In light of the judgment, it is essential for lawyers to:
- Promptly inform the client about the strict deadline for appearing at the UEPE;
- Advise sending a request for an appointment via certified email (PEC) to demonstrate compliance;
- Request a copy of the UEPE report to monitor the assignment process to community service;
- Consider an appeal only in the presence of documented force majeure.
For convicted persons, the lesson is clear: wasting time means risking the substitution of the alternative sanction with the original custodial sentence, with immediate effects on personal liberty.
Conclusions
Ruling No. 13806/2025 consolidates a strict but consistent orientation with the rationale of substitute penalties: to promote social reintegration by making the convicted person responsible. Those who opt for community service must take personal charge of it, without waiting for further prompts from the State. For criminal law practitioners, this requires a proactive defense strategy, aimed at preventing a simple delay from turning into an irreversible revocation.
