Limits of the Public Prosecutor's Appeal to the Supreme Court: Analysis of Judgment No. 18986/2025 on Double Acquittal Confirmation

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal procedural law, the role of the Supreme Court of Cassation is fundamental to ensuring interpretive uniformity and the correct application of norms. A recent ruling, Judgment No. 18986 of 2025, issued by the Sixth Criminal Section, offers important clarifications on the limits of the Public Prosecutor's (P.M.) appeal in the presence of a "double confirmation" of acquittal. This decision deserves careful analysis to understand its practical implications and scope within the appeals system.

The "Double Confirmation" of Acquittal: A Key Concept

The principle of "double confirmation" occurs when two levels of judgment, usually the first instance and the appeal, reach the same conclusion, in our case, an acquittal of the defendant. This scenario limits the possibilities of appeal to the Supreme Court, especially concerning the assessment of the facts. The Supreme Court, in fact, is not a third level of merit review, but a judge of legality, whose primary task is to verify the correct application of the law and the absence of logical or legal flaws in the reasoning of the merit judgments. The judgment we are analyzing addresses precisely this delicate interaction between factual reconstruction and the legal classification of the crime.

The Heart of the Matter: The Supreme Court's Maxim

The Supreme Court's ruling, with its authority, establishes a fundamental principle that delimits the admissibility of the P.M.'s appeal in specific situations. Here is the maxim that summarizes the core of the decision:

In matters of appeal to the Supreme Court, in the presence of a "double confirmation" of acquittal, an appeal filed by the public prosecutor, which censures the erroneous legal classification of the crime on the grounds that the reconstruction of the facts, carried out by the merit judges, is incorrect, is inadmissible, since, in such a case, the grievance refers to a flaw in the reasoning, which cannot be raised pursuant to Article 608, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This maxim highlights a crucial point: although the P.M. may legitimately appeal to censure an erroneous legal classification of the facts, such an appeal becomes inadmissible if, behind the alleged erroneous classification, there is actually a challenge to the factual reconstruction carried out by the merit judges. In other words, if to argue that the crime has been misclassified, the P.M. must necessarily argue that the facts have been ascertained incorrectly, then their appeal clashes with the prohibition of re-proposing a different interpretation of the evidence to the Supreme Court, especially in the presence of a double confirmation of acquittal.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Implications

The decision is based on established principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists the grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court, including violation of law and flaws in reasoning. However, Article 608, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (introduced to strengthen the principle of reasonable duration of proceedings and the Supreme Court's role in ensuring legal uniformity) further limits the cases in which the P.M. can appeal against acquittal judgments, excluding, in the presence of a double confirmation, challenges that result in a different assessment of the facts.

Judgment No. 18986/2025, rapporteur Dr. P. Di Geronimo, follows a jurisprudential path already traced, as evidenced by the reference to the previous judgment No. 47575 of 2016 (Rv. 268404-01). This reinforces the trend according to which the Supreme Court's review of the reasoning, while extended to verifying its logic and completeness, cannot go as far as a re-examination of the merits of the quaestio facti. Legal classification, although a question of law, is strictly connected to the ascertained factual basis. If the P.M. disputes the legal classification solely because they disagree with the reconstruction of the facts, then their grievance is not one of law, but of fact, and as such inadmissible in this specific context.

For legal professionals, this means:

• For the P.M.: Greater attention in formulating the grounds for appeal, which must be strictly anchored to violations of law and not mask challenges to the merits of the factual reconstruction.
• For the Defense: The possibility of invoking the "double confirmation" as a bulwark against P.M. appeals that attempt to re-examine the established ascertainment of facts.
• For Merit Judges: The importance of solid and coherent reasoning in reconstructing the facts, which can withstand potential challenges of legality.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 18986/2025 of the Criminal Supreme Court represents an important piece in the mosaic of procedural law, reaffirming the principle of "double confirmation" of acquittal and the limits of legality review. It clarifies that the P.M.'s appeal, while it may concern erroneous legal classification, cannot surreptitiously transform into a challenge to the factual reconstruction, especially when such reconstruction has been confirmed in two levels of judgment. This ruling contributes to strengthening legal certainty and more precisely delineating the boundaries between the ascertainment of facts, the prerogative of merit judges, and the control of legality, the exclusive task of the Supreme Court. A correct understanding of these principles is essential for all legal operators.