Plea Bargaining and Offences in Continuation: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 14203/2025

The ruling of the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation No. 14203, filed on April 10, 2025, represents an important step in the evolution of the plea bargaining procedure under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the agreement concerns multiple offences linked by the continuation rule, what happens if, during the proceedings, one of the so-called "satellite offences" is dismissed? The ruling provides an answer, offering useful clarifications for magistrates, lawyers, and defendants.

The Relevant Legal Framework

The Court referred to three central provisions:

• Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: governs plea bargaining, granting parties the power to agree on a sentence within one-third of the legal limit;
• Article 81 of the Criminal Code: regulates the continuation of offences, allowing for an increased penalty for each additional offence beyond the most serious one;
• Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: requires the judge to issue a acquittal judgment when the offence is extinguished or the act did not occur.

The combined effect of these provisions creates a negotiation space: the defendant accepts responsibility, and the State "saves" procedural activity. However, the validity of the agreement can be challenged by subsequent events, such as the acquittal of one of the contested offences.

Key Points of the Decision

The Court, presided over by E. M. and reported by E. C., annulled without referral the part of the plea bargain judgment relating to the crime of threat, which was absorbed into the crime of stalking. However, it did not overturn the entire agreement.

In the case of a plea bargain for multiple offences linked by the continuation rule, the acquittal, during the proceedings, for any reason, of one of the so-called satellite offences, does not lead to the nullification of the entire agreement, but only to the elimination of the penalty provided for said offence, provided that the judgment's reasoning indicates the individual increases to be applied for each offence and does not merely state the final overall penalty. In such a case, there is no risk of undue alteration of the negotiated profile of the ruling. (Case in which the Court annulled without referral the plea bargain judgment limited to the crime of threat, deemed absorbed into the crime of stalking, eliminating, to the extent determined by the agreement between the parties, the related penalty increase).

Comment: The Court reiterates a logic of "preservation" of the agreement: what is removed is only the penalty increase related to the satellite offence. This approach protects the original negotiated will and, at the same time, avoids an unjustified "domino effect" that would otherwise render the plea bargaining tool useless in complex proceedings.

The reasoning is fundamental: if the judge merely states the overall penalty, the elimination of the individual increase becomes impossible, with a risk of nullity. The Court of Cassation refers to consistent precedents (No. 23171/2018, No. 40320/2016) and departs from others (No. 20120/2016) that opted for total nullification.

Operational Implications for Defence and Prosecution

The decision offers concrete practical guidance:

• The parties must detail the individual increases under Article 81 of the Criminal Code in the agreement;
• The judge, when drafting the reasoning, must report these items analytically;
• In case of subsequent events (acquittal, statute of limitations, reclassification), the interested party may request only a reduction of the penalty, without fearing the reopening of the entire proceedings.

This strengthens the predictability of the procedural outcome, encouraging the use of plea bargaining and reducing the judicial workload, in line with the deflationary objectives set by both the national legislator and European recommendations on the reasonable duration of proceedings.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 14203/2025 consolidates the trend favouring the stability of plea bargain agreements, limiting the repercussions of subsequent events to the specific sanctioning component affected. For legal professionals, the message is clear: ensure precision in penalty increases and, if a satellite offence is dismissed, act to exclude the related increment without fearing the collapse of the entire agreement. For defendants, this represents a further guarantee of certainty and speed, values that are now indispensable in a modern criminal justice system.