Court costs in proceedings under Article 611 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the Supreme Court's ruling no. 13175/2025 on compensation for unjust detention

One of the most insidious issues that a criminal lawyer faces concerns the fate of costs in the appeal proceedings dedicated to compensation for unjust detention. With ruling no. 13175, filed on April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Cassation provided a clarification of great practical importance, resuming a jurisprudential trend already initiated but sometimes applied inconsistently by lower courts.

The core of the decision

The procedural facts are straightforward: the applicant – identified as G. P.M. – had requested compensation under Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria had rejected the request; the interested party filed an appeal under Article 611 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, confirming the rejection, expressly addressed the issue of the taxation of court costs.

In matters of compensation for unjust detention, court costs in appeal proceedings under Article 611 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are governed by the criteria indicated in Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due to the civil nature of the proceedings. Therefore, the losing party must be ordered, even "ex officio", to pay them, in the event that their claim is rejected or declared inadmissible and the opposing party has participated in the written proceedings, carrying out, in the ways and within the limits allowed, an activity aimed at countering the adverse claim of the defendant through a useful contribution to the decision.

Comment: the maxim highlights the hybrid nature of the appeal proceeding, formally included in the criminal procedure code but governed, as far as costs are concerned, by the principles of civil proceedings. This allows the Supreme Court to apply the order for costs "even ex officio", valuing any defense activity carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office or the successful party.

The normative framework and precedents

• Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: recognizes the right to fair compensation for those deprived of liberty without legal basis.
• Article 611 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: governs appeals to the Supreme Court against decrees on compensation.
• Articles 91-92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: regulate the order for costs in civil proceedings, with the principle of losing party bearing costs and possible set-offs.

The Supreme Court refers to consistent rulings (nos. 46265/2005, 16867/2024, 38163/2013), as well as the United Sections ruling 5466/2004 which had already defined the "substantially civil nature" of the proceedings. The focus on costs arises from the need to hold the applicant accountable, preventing purely dilatory or vexatious appeals.

Practical implications for the defense

For law firms assisting individuals subjected to unjust precautionary measures, the decision requires certain precautions:

• Rigorously assess the merits of the appeal under Article 611 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as losing the case entails a concrete risk of being ordered to pay costs.
• Punctually document the aspects of injustice of the measure: details of the acquittal judgment, lack of grounds for precautionary measures, duration of detention.
• Verify whether the opposing party (Public Prosecutor's Office) has actually carried out defense activities; only in this case is the order for costs automatic.

From a defense perspective, it is also useful to cite recent Supreme Court precedents that have deemed set-off worthy, where the appellant acted based on conflicting case law or objectively debatable reasons.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 13175/2025 consolidates an orientation that brings the compensation proceedings closer to a true civil proceeding in terms of cost regulation. For the professional, this means carefully considering the convenience of the appeal and, above all, preparing a solid case file already at the merits stage. At the same time, the ruling protects public finances by discouraging reckless appeals and promoting the efficiency of the system. Ultimately, it is another piece in the construction of a balance between the individual right to compensation and the collective interest in the reasonable economy of legal proceedings.