Commentary on Judgment No. 1653 of 2025: The Principle of 'Favor Rei' in the Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges

Judgment No. 1653 of 2025, issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in the context of the disciplinary responsibility of judges: the applicability of the principle of 'favor rei' pursuant to Article 2 of the Penal Code. In this article, we will analyze the main aspects of the judgment, highlighting its legal implications and the reasons for the Court's decision.

The Principle of 'Favor Rei'

The principle of 'favor rei' establishes that, in the case of abolitio criminis, the most favorable law for the defendant must be applied retroactively. However, the Court clarified that this principle does not apply in matters of disciplinary responsibility of judges, as disciplinary offenses are considered administrative offenses.

Principle of "favor rei" pursuant to Article 2 of the Penal Code - Applicability - Exclusion - Article 32 bis of Legislative Decree No. 109 of 2006 - Introduction of the principle - Exclusion - Basis - Case.

Exclusion of 'Favor Rei' in the Discipline of Judges

The Court reiterated that, as the principle of 'favor rei' does not apply, legislative changes affecting the discipline of judges cannot be applied retroactively. In particular, Article 32 bis, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 109 of 2006 does not provide a system of rules similar to that of Article 2 of the Penal Code, limiting itself to establishing that, for acts committed before the entry into force of the decree, the more favorable provisions of Article 18 of Royal Legislative Decree No. 511 of 1946 apply.

  • 'Favor rei' does not apply to disciplinary offenses.
  • Disciplinary rules follow a different regime compared to criminal ones.
  • Legislative changes do not apply retroactively.

Foundation of the Decision and Practical Implications

In the specific case, the Court excluded the relevance of the rewriting of Article 346 bis of the Penal Code in relation to the offense of illicit influence peddling, stating that the legal qualification of the fact relevant to the discipline must occur according to the regulatory framework in force at the time of the conduct. This clarification is fundamental to ensuring legal certainty and the stability of the disciplinary system.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 1653 of 2025 represents an important reference point in understanding the disciplinary responsibility of judges. The exclusion of the principle of 'favor rei' in this context underscores the need for a rigorous application of disciplinary norms, maintaining the distinction between criminal law and administrative law. Legal practitioners and the judges themselves must be aware of these differences to ensure the proper functioning of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm