Substitute Penalties and Conditional Suspension: the Court of Cassation with Ruling no. 17675 of 2025 Clarifies the Limits of the Cartabia Reform

The landscape of criminal law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation serve as valuable beacons for navigating the intricacies of new legislation. A recent and significant intervention by the Supreme Court, with ruling no. 17675 of April 16, 2025 (filed on May 9, 2025), has provided important clarifications on the application of substitute penalties in relation to the conditional suspension of the sentence, especially in light of the changes introduced by the so-called Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree no. 150/2022). This decision, with rapporteur P. G. A. R. and president A. E., involving defendant S. M. and public prosecutor P. S., is destined to profoundly impact judicial practice, ensuring greater clarity and protection for the defendant.

The Regulatory Context: the Cartabia Reform and Substitute Penalties

The Cartabia Reform marked a turning point in the Italian sanctioning system, aiming to decongest the prison system and promote rehabilitation paths through wider use of penalties that substitute short prison sentences. Article 71 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2022, in particular, introduced a prohibition on substituting short prison sentences if conditional suspension of the sentence had already been granted. The objective was to prevent a defendant from accumulating benefits, enjoying both suspension (which "freezes" the execution of the sentence) and substitution (which converts the prison sentence into a less burdensome one). However, the provision presented a grey area, generating application uncertainties.

The Crucial Issue: Illegitimate Suspension and Substitute Penalties

The focal point on which the Court of Cassation ruled concerned precisely this "grey area": what happens if the conditional suspension of the sentence was granted without the legal prerequisites? In such circumstances, the defendant would find themselves in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, they would not be entitled to the benefit of suspension; on the other hand, the prohibition introduced by the Cartabia Reform would also preclude them from accessing substitute penalties. This situation could have led to a double disadvantage for the convicted person, who would also be exposed to the risk of revocation of the illegitimately granted benefit during the execution phase. The Court of Appeal of Bari, with a ruling of April 9, 2024, had raised the issue, which was subsequently subject to partial annulment with referral by the Supreme Court.

The Position of the Court of Cassation: the Maxim of Ruling 17675/2025

The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 17675 of 2025, has offered an interpretive solution of great significance, affirming a legal principle that aims to balance the need for system rationalization with the protection of the defendant's rights. The maxim reads:

The prohibition of substituting short prison sentences in cases where conditional suspension of the sentence is granted, introduced by art. 71 Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150, does not apply in cases where the aforementioned benefit was granted in the absence of legal prerequisites, otherwise precluding the defendant from obtaining the substitution of the penalty and exposing them, during the execution phase, to the revocation of the illegitimately granted benefit.

This interpretation is fundamental. The Court of Cassation has clarified that if the conditional suspension was granted erroneously, in the absence of legal requirements (e.g., due to prior convictions that would exclude it, as provided for by articles 163 and 164 of the Criminal Code), the prohibition on accessing substitute penalties does not apply. This means that the defendant, despite having received an "illegitimate" benefit, must not suffer further prejudice, also losing the possibility of obtaining a substitute penalty that would have been due to them in the absence of that "flawed" suspension. The Court of Cassation's decision aligns with the principles of substantive justice, preventing a judicial error from resulting in irreparable harm to the convicted person.

Practical Implications and Defendant's Protection

The practical consequences of this ruling are significant. The Court of Cassation's ruling:

• Avoids a double disadvantage: The defendant will not be deprived of both conditional suspension (because it was illegitimately granted) and the possibility of accessing substitute penalties.
• Promotes system coherence: The interpretation prevents situations where a procedural error (granting a benefit without prerequisites) negatively affects the execution phase, with the risk of suspension revocation and consequent execution of the prison sentence without alternatives.
• Strengthens defendant's protection: It ensures that the convicted person always has the possibility to access the most appropriate and least burdensome sanctioning treatment, provided the legal prerequisites exist.
• Provides clarity to legal professionals: Lawyers, judges, and public prosecutors now have a clear guideline for applying Article 71 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2022 in complex situations.

This ruling follows the line of jurisprudence attentive to the effective application of the principles of a fair trial and the rehabilitative function of punishment, as enshrined in Article 27 of the Constitution.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 17675 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step towards greater legal certainty and fairer application of rules concerning substitute penalties and conditional suspension. By clarifying the limits of the prohibition introduced by the Cartabia Reform, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the centrality of defendant protection, preventing errors in granting penal benefits from resulting in an unjust aggravation of their position. An intervention that confirms the importance of careful analysis of the specific case and an interpretation of the rules oriented towards the maximum guarantee of fundamental rights.