Plea Bargaining and Limits to Appeals to the Supreme Court: Focus on Judgment No. 14835/2025

With judgment no. 14835 of April 3, 2025 (filed April 15, 2025), the Supreme Court, Second Criminal Section, has once again ruled on the boundaries of plea bargaining when the public prosecutor is represented by the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). The case involved a non-profit cooperative accused of aggravated fraud for obtaining public funds and of the administrative offense under Articles 5 and 24 of Legislative Decree 231/2001. The Preliminary Hearing Judge (G.u.p.) of Verona had approved the agreement pursuant to Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.); however, the entity appealed, alleging a violation of the right to defense and of supranational law, particularly Article 6 of the ECHR. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, establishing principles of significant interest for professionals and businesses.

The Core of the Decision

The Court ruled that the choice to opt for plea bargaining constitutes ipso facto a waiver of the right to contest the charges, regardless of the EPPO's involvement. Consequently, a judgment applying the sentence becomes appealable only for the defects specifically listed in Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the c.p.p. (non-existence of conditions for prosecution, incorrect legal qualification of the act, illegality of the sentence or security measure).

In matters of plea bargaining, the party's consent to the resolution of the proceedings through an agreement on the sentence implies their waiver of contesting the charges and of exercising certain rights stemming from the full exercise of the right to defense, even in the case of the European Prosecutor's participation in the proceedings. Therefore, the possibility of appealing the judgment to the Supreme Court remains limited to the hypotheses expressly set forth in Article 448, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Comment: the maxim highlights that adherence to plea bargaining has a "paralyzing effect" on grievances other than those specifically enumerated. Neither the intervention of the EPPO, a recently introduced supranational body, nor the reference to ECHR principles can broaden its scope: the legislator intended to preserve the case-settling function of this institution, ensuring certainty and speed in criminal proceedings.

Relationship Between EPPO and the Right to Defense

One of the grounds raised by the entity was the alleged impossibility of interacting with the EPPO's Permanent Chamber, which had authorized the prosecution. However, the Supreme Court recalled that Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and Legislative Decree 9/2021, which implements it, do not provide for prior adversarial proceedings at this stage. Once plea bargaining is chosen, any prior violation is, in effect, absorbed, unless it affects the conditions for prosecution: a circumstance not found in this case.

Implications for Entities under Legislative Decree 231/2001

The ruling directly concerns companies and collective entities liable under Legislative Decree 231/2001. In particular:

• it reiterates the full applicability of plea bargaining to administrative offenses;
• it emphasizes the need for careful strategic evaluation before entering into an agreement, as the possibilities for appeal will be drastically reduced;
• it indicates that the presence of the European Prosecutor does not alter the ordinary regime of grounds for appeal.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14835/2025 confirms an already established trend (see Cass. No. 33145/2020) and provides an important guide for lawyers, compliance officers, and corporate bodies. Plea bargaining is advantageous when there is clarity on the charges and the potential sanctions; otherwise, it is better to consider procedural alternatives that safeguard a broader range of defenses. The EPPO's intervention, on the other hand, does not introduce substantial derogations to the domestic system: synergy between national legislation and EU rules is achieved, but without undermining the fundamental balance of Italian criminal procedure.