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

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 conformity" of acquittal. This decision deserves careful analysis to understand its practical implications and scope within the appeals system.

The "Double Conformity" of Acquittal: A Key Concept

The principle of "double conformity" 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 regarding the assessment of the facts. The Supreme Court, in fact, is not a third level of merit, but a judge of legality, whose main task is to verify the correct application of the law and the absence of logical or legal defects in the reasoning of the merit judgments. The judgment we are analyzing addresses precisely this delicate interaction between factual reconstruction and legal qualification of the crime.

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

The ruling of the Supreme Court, 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, an appeal filed by the public prosecutor, which censures the erroneous legal qualification of the crime on the grounds that the reconstruction of the facts, carried out by the merit judges, is incorrect, is inadmissible in the presence of a "double conformity" of acquittal, since, in such a case, the grievance refers to a defect 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. can legitimately appeal to censure an erroneous legal qualification of the facts, such an appeal becomes inadmissible if, behind the alleged erroneous qualification, there is actually a dispute of the factual reconstruction carried out by the merit judges. In other words, if to argue that the crime has been wrongly qualified, the P.M. must necessarily argue that the facts have been ascertained incorrectly, then his appeal clashes with the prohibition of re-proposing a different interpretation of the evidence in the Supreme Court, especially in the presence of a double conformity of acquittal.

Normative 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 defects 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 nomophylactic function of the Supreme Court) further limits the cases in which the P.M. can appeal against acquittal judgments, excluding, in the presence of double conformity, challenges that result in a different assessment of the facts.

Judgment No. 18986/2025, rapporteur Dr. P. Di Geronimo, follows a pre-existing jurisprudential line, as evidenced by the reference to the previous judgment No. 47575 of 2016 (Rv. 268404-01). This reinforces the orientation that the Supreme Court's review of the reasoning, while extended to verify its logic and completeness, cannot go as far as a re-examination of the merits of the quaestio facti. The legal qualification, although a question of law, is strictly connected to the ascertained factual basis. If the P.M. disputes the legal qualification 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 grounds for appeal, which must be strictly anchored to violations of law and not mask disputes of merit regarding factual reconstruction.
• For the Defense: The possibility of invoking "double conformity" as a bulwark against P.M. appeals that attempt to re-examine the already consolidated 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 conformity" of acquittal and the limits of legality review. It clarifies that the P.M.'s appeal, while it may concern erroneous legal qualification, cannot surreptitiously transform into a dispute of 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.