The Non-Appealability of Sentences Imposing Fines: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 17277 of 2025

In the Italian legal landscape, the dynamics of criminal appeals are constantly subject to interpretation and adaptation, especially in light of recent reforms. One of the most debated issues concerns the scope of appeal, a fundamental means of challenging a judgment to ensure the right to a double degree of judgment. The Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 17277 of 06/05/2025, has provided essential clarification regarding the non-appealability of conviction sentences that impose a fine, even when it replaces the custodial penalty of arrest. This decision, presided over by Dr. M. A. and drafted by Dr. C. G., follows the modifications introduced by the Cartabia Reform, offering crucial points for reflection for professionals and citizens.

The Cartabia Reform and Innovations in Appeals

Legislative Decree 22 October 2022, No. 150, commonly known as the Cartabia Reform, has brought significant changes to the code of criminal procedure, with the primary objective of reducing the judicial workload and speeding up justice. Among the various innovations, the revision of Article 593, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Article 34, paragraph 1, letter a), of the aforementioned decree, stands out. This amendment has had a direct impact on the possibility of appealing certain conviction sentences. In particular, the reform intended to limit access to appeal for less serious convictions, introducing a criterion based on the type and severity of the penalty imposed.

The underlying logic is to reserve appeals for more serious cases, channeling minor disputes towards more streamlined procedural paths or resolutions at the first instance. This balance between procedural efficiency and the guarantee of the right to defense is at the heart of numerous legal debates and has required careful interpretation by case law.

The Core of the Ruling: The Non-Appealability of Fines

In matters of appeals, a conviction sentence imposing a fine is not appealable, even if it is in substitution, in whole or in part, of arrest, by virtue of Article 593, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Article 34, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree 22 October 2022, No. 150, and the simultaneous introduction of substitute penalties for short-term custodial sentences under Articles 20-bis of the Criminal Code and 53 et seq. of Law 24 November 1981, No. 689.

This summary from the Court of Cassation synthesizes the key principle of the decision. The ruling clearly states that a conviction involving a fine, i.e., a pecuniary penalty, is not subject to appeal. The innovative and sometimes counter-intuitive scope of this pronouncement lies in the fact that non-appealability also extends to cases where the fine was imposed as a total or partial substitute for arrest. Traditionally, arrest, although a short-term custodial penalty, opened the door to appeal. However, with the introduction of substitute penalties for short-term custodial sentences (as provided for by Art. 20-bis of the Criminal Code and Art. 53 et seq. of Law No. 689 of 1981), the legislator has created a new framework.

The reason for this choice lies in the intention to fully implement the Cartabia Reform, which has strengthened the system of non-custodial substitute penalties, considering them a more effective and less burdensome response for less serious offenses. If fines, even when substituting arrest, were appealable, the objective of streamlining procedures for less impactful convictions would be partially undermined.

Practical Implications and Legal References

For the defendant S. P., convicted by the Court of Bologna on 23/02/2024, the Cassation ruling resulted in the declaration of inadmissibility of the appeal. This means that, in similar cases, the party convicted to a fine, even if it is a substitute penalty, will not be able to appeal the first-instance judgment but must, if necessary, appeal directly to the Court of Cassation on points of law. This scenario requires greater attention during the first-instance trial, as the possibilities of challenging the decision in a second instance of merit are precluded.

The key legal references for this ruling are multiple and interconnected:

• Art. 593, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the procedural rule that establishes the non-appealability of certain sentences.
• Art. 34, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022: the provision of the Cartabia Reform that amended Art. 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Art. 20-bis of the Criminal Code: introduces substitute penalties for short-term custodial sentences.
• Art. 53 et seq. of Law No. 689 of 1981: governs the application and execution of substitute penalties.

These articles work in synergy to outline a framework in which pecuniary penalties, even when they can substitute a custodial penalty, retain their nature as minor sanctions and, consequently, the procedural regime of non-appealability provided for less serious convictions.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 17277 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the interpretation of criminal appeal rules post-Cartabia Reform. It strongly reiterates the trend towards rationalizing degrees of judgment, limiting appeals for convictions involving fines, even when imposed as a substitute for arrest. This decision has a significant impact on defense strategy and the assessment of procedural risks, making thorough preparation for the first-instance trial even more crucial. For citizens and legal professionals, it is essential to fully understand these dynamics to navigate the Italian criminal justice system with awareness, as it continues to evolve towards models of greater efficiency without neglecting fundamental guarantees.