Prescription and multiple negligent homicide: what ruling no. 12713/2025 of the Court of Cassation establishes

The Court of Cassation, Fourth Criminal Section, with ruling no. 12713 filed on April 2, 2025, has once again addressed a topic that every criminal lawyer encounters sooner or later: the doubling of prescription periods in cases of multiple negligent homicide. The case concerned B. C., accused of a tragic road accident with multiple victims; the Court of Appeal of Catania had declared the crime time-barred without applying art. 157, paragraph 6, of the Criminal Code. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the term should have been doubled due to the plurality of deaths. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, setting clear and, at the same time, limited boundaries to this exception.

The regulatory context: art. 157 and 589 of the Criminal Code

Art. 157, paragraph 6, of the Criminal Code provides for the doubling of prescription periods "for the crimes referred to in articles 589 and 590, when the circumstance referred to in the fourth paragraph of art. 589 or the third paragraph of art. 590 occurs." The fourth paragraph of art. 589 of the Criminal Code punishes negligent homicide aggravated by the violation of road traffic or workplace accident prevention regulations. The legislator's intent in 2016 (the so-called "road homicide" reform) is clear: to sanction more severely those who, by violating particularly relevant rules of care, cause the death of one or more individuals.

The ruling's maxim

The doubling of prescription periods provided for by art. 157, sixth paragraph, of the Criminal Code, in relation to the hypothesis referred to in art. 589, fourth paragraph, of the Criminal Code, applies only to cases of multiple negligent homicide aggravated by the violation of road traffic or workplace accident prevention regulations.

In other words: if the "road" or "workplace safety" aggravating circumstance is absent, the plurality of victims is not enough to trigger the doubling. The Court of Cassation thus reiterates what has already been stated previously (inter alia, Cass. 23944/2013, 51959/2016, 29439/2020), in defense of the principle of legality (art. 25, para. 2, of the Constitution) and the principle of favor rei in matters of prescription.

Jurisprudential precedents and the principle of specificity

The Constitutional Court, with ruling no. 143/2021, emphasized that any extension of prescription periods constitutes an exception to the general rule and must be interpreted restrictively. The Court of Cassation follows the same line: an extensive interpretation – "it is enough that there are more than one victim" – would violate the requirement of specificity, transforming the clause into a presumption of greater dangerousness not provided for by law.

Practical implications for professionals and businesses

The principle affirmed is particularly relevant for:

• Legal professionals, called upon to assess prescription in files concerning fatal accidents.
• Insurance companies, to estimate residual exposure to civil damages related to ongoing criminal proceedings.
• Employers and Safety Managers (RSPP), who, in the event of multiple fatal accidents, must be aware that the contestation of art. 589, para. 4, of the Criminal Code entails not only higher penalties but also longer procedural times.

Other hypotheses of multiple deaths – such as medical errors or natural disasters attributable to negligence – therefore remain subject to the ordinary prescription period (currently, for simple negligent homicide, 6 years + suspensions), with strategic implications for defense choices, from plea bargaining to requests for abbreviated proceedings.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 12713/2025 reinforces a consistent trend: the compression of the right to procedural oblivion is permitted only in expressly provided cases. For the doubling of periods to apply, it is necessary that the multiple negligent homicide is aggravated by violations of fundamental rules for road safety or worker health. For legal operators, employers, and citizens, the message is twofold: on the one hand, maximum severity towards those who violate life-saving rules; on the other, solid guarantees to protect those who are held liable for negligence without the typified aggravating circumstances.