The Jurisdiction of the Criminal Enforcement Judge: The Important Clarification by the Court of Cassation with Judgment no. 16916/2025

Criminal law, in its enforcement phase, presents complexities that require precise jurisprudential interpretations. Determining the competent judge to manage the enforcement of multiple orders against the same individual is a common challenge. It is in this context that the significant Judgment no. 16916 of the Court of Cassation, filed on May 6, 2025, offers an essential clarification on the jurisdiction of the enforcement judge, particularly for acquittals due to the particular insignificance of the act.

The Framework of Jurisdiction in the Enforcement Proceedings

Criminal enforcement proceedings, governed by Articles 665 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concern all judicial decisions that require implementation. Jurisdiction becomes complicated when an individual is the recipient of multiple orders. Article 665, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that, in the case of multiple final judgments or criminal decrees against the same person, jurisdiction belongs to the judge who issued the last order that became final. But what happens if the latter is an acquittal? It is on this point that the Supreme Court has shed light.

Judgment no. 16916/2025: The Role of Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code

The ruling of the Court of Cassation, First Criminal Section (President B. M., Rapporteur D. F.), definitively resolves the issue, declaring the jurisdiction of the Court of Ancona. The core of the decision is in the following maxim:

In enforcement proceedings, in the case of multiple enforceable orders against the same individual, jurisdiction belongs to the judge who issued the last order that became final, even if it is an acquittal issued pursuant to Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code.

This maxim is fundamental. It reiterates the general principle of jurisdiction attraction by the judge who issued the last final order, explicitly extending it to acquittals under Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code. Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code governs the "particular insignificance of the act," a ground for non-punishability applicable when the offensiveness of the crime is minimal, the behavior is not habitual, and there are no conditions of aggravated recidivism. Although it is an acquittal, it is a judicial decision that affects the legal status of the defendant, capable of establishing enforcement jurisdiction.

Practical Implications and Legal References

The implications of this judgment are significant for legal certainty and procedural speed. The extension of the rule to Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code highlights how even non-conviction decisions have weight in enforcement. The declaration of non-punishability for the particular insignificance of the act, while not a conviction, produces relevant legal effects, such as registration in the criminal record and the prevention of a new application of the benefit. For the application of Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, the law requires:

• A maximum statutory custodial sentence not exceeding two years, or only a pecuniary penalty.
• Particular insignificance of the offense, assessed based on the conduct and the minimal damage or danger.
• Occasional nature of the conduct, excluding habitual behavior.

The judgment reinforces the idea that every final judicial decision, regardless of its nature, contributes to defining the framework of enforcement jurisdiction, provided it is the last to become irrevocable.

Conclusions: Clarity and Legal Certainty in Enforcement

In summary, Judgment no. 16916/2025 of the Court of Cassation is a firm point in the complex matter of the jurisdiction of the criminal enforcement judge. It clarifies that even an acquittal for the particular insignificance of the act under Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code can establish jurisdiction, ensuring coherence and predictability in the system. This ruling simplifies the identification of the competent forum and reiterates the importance of considering every final judicial decision as an integral part of an individual's enforcement path, contributing to a clearer and more efficient justice system.