Abolition of Crime and Irrevocable Sentence: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Role of Art. 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Ruling No. 17793 of 2025

In the Italian legal landscape, the issue of the abolition of a crime and its consequences on final judgments is a matter of fundamental importance, directly impacting citizens' rights and the application of constitutional principles. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 17793 of 2025 (filed on 12/05/2025), has ruled clearly and unequivocally, delineating the boundaries between two crucial procedural instruments: the review of the judgment and the revocation by the execution judge. This ruling, presided over by Dr. G. V. and with Dr. A. S. as Rapporteur, offers valuable insights for understanding the correct application of criminal and procedural law.

Abolition of Crime: A Fundamental Principle

The principle of the retroactivity of the more favourable criminal law, enshrined in Article 2, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, states that "no one shall be punished for an act that, according to a subsequent law, no longer constitutes a crime." This principle, a cornerstone of our legal system, aims to ensure that citizens do not suffer the criminal consequences of an action that the State no longer considers unlawful. When a crime is abolished (the so-called abolitio criminis), a situation arises where a previously sanctioned conduct loses its criminal relevance. The question that naturally arises is: what legal instrument must be activated to remove the effects of a final conviction for an act no longer considered a crime?

The Cassation's Decision: Review or Revocation?

The case examined by the Court of Cassation concerns the defendant M. M., who was definitively convicted of a crime that was subsequently abolished or modified in such a way that it no longer constituted a criminal offense. Faced with this situation, the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria had declared an application for review inadmissible. The Court of Cassation upheld this orientation, clarifying that the review of the judgment, governed by art. 629 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not the appropriate procedural remedy in cases of abolitio criminis. Review, in fact, is an extraordinary means of appeal aimed at correcting judicial errors based on new evidence or facts unknown at the time of the judgment, not at incorporating subsequent legislative changes.

An application for review of an irrevocable judgment in the case of subsequent abolition of the crime is inadmissible, as the only available remedy to implement the provisions of art. 2, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code is revocation by the execution judge, pursuant to art. 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Case concerning abuse of office).

The maxim of Ruling No. 17793 of 2025 is peremptory and clear: an application for review cannot be used for the abolition of a crime. The Supreme Collegium reiterated that the only suitable instrument to implement the principle of retroactivity of the more favourable criminal law (art. 2, paragraph 2, c.p.) is the revocation of the judgment by the execution judge, as provided for by art. 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article, in fact, states that "in the case of abolition or declaration of unconstitutionality of the criminal provision, the execution judge shall revoke the sentence of conviction or the criminal decree, declaring that the act is not provided for by law as a crime and shall adopt the consequent measures." The specific case examined, concerning abuse of office (art. 323 c.p.), makes the example particularly relevant, given the recent legislative evolution that has affected this crime. The distinction is crucial because it ensures the correct application of the law and prevents the improper use of procedural instruments unsuitable for the purpose.

Practical Implications for the Convicted Person

This ruling has important practical implications for those in a situation similar to that of M. M. If a citizen has been convicted by an irrevocable judgment for a crime that is subsequently abolished, they should not file an application for review, but rather a request for revocation to the competent execution judge. The execution judge has the task of verifying the existence of the abolitio criminis and, if positive, revoking the conviction, with all the consequent effects, such as the cessation of the execution of the penalty and the cancellation of the criminal effects of the conviction.

• **Review**: A tool to remedy judicial errors based on new evidence or facts, not for legislative changes.
• **Revocation by the execution judge**: A specific and mandatory means to implement the abolitio criminis and the principle of retroactivity of the more favourable criminal law.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 17793 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation strongly reaffirms a fundamental principle of our legal system: the need for rigorous and specific application of procedural instruments. The clarity with which the function of review is distinguished from that of revocation by the execution judge, in cases of crime abolition, offers a valuable guide for lawyers, magistrates, and, above all, citizens. Understanding this distinction is essential to protect one's rights and ensure that justice is always in line with legislative evolution, ensuring that no one is punished for an act that the law no longer considers unlawful.