Substitute Penalties and Economic Conditions: The Court of Cassation with Judgment no. 19039/2025 Calls for Clarity

Italian justice constantly faces the balance between the punitive need and the principles of proportionality of punishment. In this context, the recent Judgment no. 19039 of April 17, 2025 (filed May 21, 2025) of the Court of Cassation assumes great importance. Presided over by Dr. M. G. R. A. and with Dr. S. R. as rapporteur and author, this decision intervenes on the delicate issue of converting short prison sentences into monetary sanctions, especially in the presence of disadvantaged economic conditions of the defendant. The judgment, which partially annulled with referral a decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome, establishes a fundamental principle that deserves careful analysis.

The Fundamental Principle Affirmed by the Court of Cassation: Indigence Does Not Hinder Conversion

The central point of the issue is whether the judge can deny the substitution of a short prison sentence with a monetary one, justifying it with the precarious economic conditions of the convicted person. The Supreme Court has unequivocally clarified that such a denial is not admissible, setting a firm point in the jurisprudence on substitute penalties.

In the matter of substitute penalties for short prison sentences, the judge cannot reject the request for substitution of the prison sentence with a monetary penalty based on the disadvantaged economic and financial conditions of the defendant, as the prognosis of non-compliance that would hinder it refers only to substitute penalties accompanied by prescriptions. (In the reasoning, the Court highlighted that, moreover, the new wording of art. 56-quater of Law of November 24, 1981, no. 689, introduced by art. 71, paragraph 1, letter d), Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150, allows for the calibration of the amount of the monetary penalty to the overall economic situation of the defendant).

This passage is crucial. The Court of Cassation clearly distinguishes between substitute penalties that involve prescriptions (such as semi-liberty or house arrest) and monetary penalties. For the former, a negative prognosis of compliance can justify denial. For monetary penalties, however, disadvantaged economic conditions cannot be an obstacle. Denying substitution for economic reasons would be equivalent to condemning the defendant to detention due to their indigence, creating an unacceptable disparity of treatment that infringes upon the constitutional principles of equality and the rehabilitative purpose of punishment.

The Cartabia Reform and the Proportionality of Monetary Penalties

Judgment no. 19039/2025 is part of the regulatory framework profoundly modified by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150, known as the Cartabia Reform. The Court specifically refers to the new wording of Article 56-quater of Law of November 24, 1981, no. 689, which allows for the