Substitute Penalties and Connected Crimes: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Limits with Ruling No. 9612/2025

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the application of substitute penalties for short prison sentences represents a fundamental pillar for the modernization of the sanctioning system, aiming to promote the rehabilitation of the convicted person and reduce recourse to detention. However, the interpretation of the limits within which these measures can be granted, especially in the presence of multiple unified crimes, has often generated debate. In this context, the recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 9612 of 05/02/2025 (filed on 10/03/2025), authoritatively intervenes, providing essential clarifications and guiding the work of judges.

The Regulatory Framework for Substitute Penalties

Substitute penalties, originally introduced by Law No. 689 of 1981 and profoundly reformed by Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022 (the so-called “Cartabia Reform”), represent an alternative to detention for convictions with short sentences. Their purpose is twofold: on the one hand, to decongest prisons and, on the other, to offer more effective social reintegration paths than short stays in institutions. These include substitute semi-liberty, substitute house arrest, substitute community service, and substitute monetary penalties. Their application is subject to precise conditions and penalty limits, traditionally set at four years for prison sentences. But what happens when an accused person is called to answer for multiple crimes?

Concurrence of Crimes and Substitute Penalties: The Crucial Knot

The criminal code provides for two fundamental figures when a person commits multiple crimes: formal concurrence (Art. 81, paragraph 1, c.p.), which occurs when a single action or omission violates multiple legal provisions or commits multiple violations of the same provision, and continuation (Art. 81, paragraph 2, c.p.), which occurs when multiple violations of the same or different legal provisions are committed in execution of the same criminal design. In both cases, the judge applies the penalty provided for the most serious crime, increasing it up to three times (in formal concurrence) or by an amount not exceeding three times (in continuation). The question that arose is whether, for the purpose of determining the limits for access to substitute penalties, the penalty for the individual crime or the penalty resulting from the increase for concurrence or continuation should be considered.

For the purpose of determining the limits within which substitute penalties for short prison sentences can be applied, in cases where multiple crimes unified by formal concurrence or continuation are involved, the prison sentence resulting from the increases made pursuant to Art. 81 of the Criminal Code must be taken into account. Therefore, the judge may substitute the prison sentence only if, after determining the increase in penalty for the formal concurrence or continuation of the crimes, the prison sentence is quantified in a total amount not exceeding four years.

This maxim, extracted from Ruling No. 9612/2025, clearly resolves the dilemma. The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. Verga and with Dr. M. M. Alma as rapporteur, has established that to assess the admissibility of substitute penalties, the judge must consider the overall penalty resulting from the application of Art. 81 c.p., i.e., that resulting from the increases for formal concurrence or continuation. This means that the four-year limit, beyond which substitute penalties cannot be accessed, must be calculated on the total penalty imposed for all unified crimes, and not on the base penalty of the single most serious crime. This interpretation aligns with the orientation already expressed in previous decisions (such as Ruling No. 1776 of 2024), but differs from other dissenting maxims (e.g., No. 35973 of 2021), consolidating a fundamental legal principle.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The decision of the Supreme Court has significant repercussions for defendants, lawyers, and judges. In particular:

For defendants: The possibility of accessing substitute penalties will depend on the overall penalty resulting from the sum of the crimes committed in concurrence or continuation. This makes a defense attentive to the quantification of the penalty from the earliest stages of the proceedings even more crucial.
For defense lawyers: The ruling requires a reconsideration of defense strategies, placing greater emphasis on the correct application of Art. 81 c.p. and on assessing the impact of the overall penalty on access to alternative measures.
For judges: The ruling provides a clear and binding criterion for determining penalty limits, reducing interpretative uncertainty and ensuring greater uniformity in the application of the law. The Court of Appeal of Milan, whose previous decision was partially annulled with referral in the case of the defendant S. Zampaglione, will have to comply with this principle.

This ruling is part of the broader context of the Cartabia Reform, which has strengthened the role of substitute penalties. Understanding how these interact with complex institutes such as the concurrence of crimes is essential to ensure more efficient criminal justice oriented towards social recovery.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 9612 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the jurisprudence concerning substitute penalties and the concurrence of crimes. By clarifying that the four-year limit must be calculated on the overall penalty resulting from the increases pursuant to Art. 81 c.p., the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance for all legal operators. This decision strengthens the coherence of the sanctioning system and underscores the importance of careful evaluation of each individual case, to balance the need for punishment with that of social reintegration, always in compliance with the fundamental principles of our legal system.

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Ми постійно стежимо за змінами в законодавстві та судовій практиці, пропонуючи актуальний аналіз та інноваційні рішення. Ми ділимося розвитком права, щоб сприяти більш усвідомленій правовій культурі.

Substitute Penalties and Connected Crimes: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Limits with Ruling No. 9612/2025

The Regulatory Framework for Substitute Penalties

Concurrence of Crimes and Substitute Penalties: The Crucial Knot

Practical Implications of the Ruling

Conclusions

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Останні статті

Військова юрисдикція у пекуляції: аналіз рішення №20317 від 2025 року

Європейський ордер на арешт та італійський вирок: рішення № 19696/2025 Касаційного суду

Домашнє насильство та неповнолітні: Рішення Касаційного суду № 20128/2025 переосмислює обтяжуючу обставину

Європейський ордер на арешт: Верховний касаційний суд щодо юрисдикції органу, що видав ордер (Рішення № 19671/2025)

Європейський ордер на арешт: Касаційний суд та важливість інформованої згоди (Cass. Pen. n. 19487/2025)

Адміністративне затримання іноземців: Рішення Касаційного суду № 18637 від 2025 року та судовий контроль

Продовження злочину та суддя з виконання вироку: ясність рішення Касаційного суду № 19390/2025

Адміністративне затримання та заява про притулок: обов'язок наводити доводи (постанова Верховного Суду № 18274 від 2025 року)

Компетенція судді з нагляду за виконанням покарань щодо застосування альтернативного домашнього арешту: Аналіз судового рішення № 18940/2025

Утримання іноземців в Албанії: Касаційний суд Італії роз’яснює питання щодо «побічного» утримання (рішення № 17510/2025)

Категорії

Теги

Напишіть нам електронною поштою

Зателефонуйте нам

Бюро

Юридичні послуги

Команда

Контакти