Inadmissibility of criminal appeals: what Cassation no. 15897/2025 teaches us
The ordinance of the Fifth Criminal Section, filed on April 24, 2025, revisits a crucial issue in criminal procedure: the boundaries within which the appellate judge can declare an appeal inadmissible. Let's analyze the reasoning and practical implications for the defense, in light of Article 591 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) and the previous case law of the United Sections.
The core of the decision
The appellate judge can declare an appeal inadmissible only when the grounds lack "intrinsic" specificity, meaning they merely lament the generic omission of consideration of an alternative thesis to the one followed in the challenged decision, or "extrinsic" specificity, meaning they are not related to the reasons stated in the challenged judgment, but not when the grounds are deemed unsuitable, even manifestly so, to refute the reasoning.
With these words, the Supreme Court reiterates a principle already established by the United Sections (judgment no. 8825/2017) and followed by numerous consistent precedents. The focus is not on the (in)validity of the grounds, but on their ability to precisely identify the parts of the challenged judgment and to indicate where, according to the appellant, the first-instance judge erred.
Intrinsic and extrinsic specificity: operational differences
The judgment distinguishes between two broad categories of vagueness:
- Intrinsic: the appeal document merely states, apodictically, a preference for a different reconstruction of the facts or a different evaluation of the evidence, without engaging with the judge's logical-legal reasoning.
- Extrinsic: the grounds, even if articulated, do not "dialogue" with the challenged reasoning. That is, there is a lack of causal link between the criticisms and the arguments of the first-instance judgment.
In both cases, the appeal is inadmissible; conversely, when the document precisely identifies an error, the judge cannot stop at the lack of persuasive force of the criticisms but must examine the merits and reject or accept them.
Legislative and jurisprudential framework
Article 591, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs inadmissibility due to lack of specific grounds. The Court of Cassation, with the ruling under review, clarifies that:
- Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains the pivot of the legality review, but it does not allow for the "anticipation" of the assessment of invalidity in the admissibility phase;
- vagueness must be assessed in relation to the challenged judgment; therefore, it is not sufficient to reproduce the summons or the first-instance defense brief in the appeal;
- it is not sufficient to note the manifest invalidity: it is necessary to verify if there is at least a logical "hook" to the reasoning.
This reasoning is consistent with consolidated case law (Cass. no. 36533/2021 and 11942/2020), aimed at preventing inadmissibility from becoming a surreptitious filtering tool, detrimental to the right of defense guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.
Practical implications for the defense
To avoid the risk of inadmissibility, it is advisable to:
- analytically identify the contested parts of the reasoning, citing the page or paragraph number;
- state the different legal reasoning or different evaluation of the evidence, explaining its decisive relevance;
- link each ground to the relevant Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (letter e, error in reasoning, or letter b, violation of law).
In this way, the appeal document will pass the admissibility review and compel the second-instance judge to examine the merits.
Conclusions
Judgment no. 15897/2025 does not introduce a new principle, but strengthens its scope of application: the inadmissibility filter cannot be used to avoid examining specific grounds, even if weak. This is a fundamental guarantee for the right of defense, which lawyers must know how to leverage by drafting precise appeals that "dialogue" with the challenged decision.
