The Court of Cassation and the Extraordinary Appeal for Error of Fact: Analysis of Judgment No. 9386 of 2025
The Italian judicial system is in continuous evolution, with the pronouncements of the Court of Cassation defining its application. Judgment No. 9386 of 26/02/2025 (filed on 06/03/2025 and decided on 13/06/2024), presided over by Dr. A. P. and drafted by Dr. D. D., offers a crucial clarification on the extraordinary appeal for error of fact. This decision has significant implications for the speed and efficiency of criminal proceedings, simplifying a previously more complex procedure.
The Extraordinary Appeal for Error of Fact: A Brief Overview
The extraordinary appeal for error of fact, governed by Article 625-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an exceptional tool. It allows for the correction of material or perceptual errors that have tainted a decision of the Court of Cassation, without re-examining the merits. It is not a new legal assessment, but a remedy for an evident inaccuracy. This safeguard ensures that even the Supreme Court can correct its own "factual" errors, which is fundamental for justice.
The Issue of Two Phases: Rescissory and Rescinding
Traditionally, the extraordinary appeal for error of fact has generated debate on the necessity of two distinct phases: a "rescissory" phase (annulment of the flawed measure) and a "rescinding" phase (new judgment). This interpretation led to longer times and greater complexity. The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 9386 of 2025, has now provided an interpretation that significantly streamlines this procedure.
In the context of an extraordinary appeal for error of fact, given that Article 625-bis, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the Court of Cassation, if it accepts the request, shall adopt the necessary measures to correct the error, the definition of the procedure does not necessarily have to be articulated in the two distinct phases of the immediate annulment of the flawed measure and the subsequent hearing for the renewed judgment on the previous appeal for cassation, as an immediate pronouncement of the decision can be adopted, which, if it accepts the appeal, replaces the previous one.
This maxim is the heart of the ruling. The Supreme Court clarifies that it is no longer mandatory to follow two separate steps to correct an error of fact. Article 625-bis, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court of Cassation to "adopt the necessary measures to correct the error." This means that the Court can directly proceed to a new decision that replaces the previous one, eliminating the "double hearing" and ensuring a faster and more effective resolution. This interpretation favors procedural efficiency and the protection of rights, consolidating a trend already expressed in similar rulings (e.g., No. 17178/2015) and overcoming previous divergent views.
Practical Implications and Benefits for Criminal Proceedings
The decision of the Court of Cassation has concrete repercussions of considerable importance, with the following benefits:
- Speed: The elimination of the double phase reduces the time taken in criminal proceedings.
- Simplification: The path for correcting an error of fact is more linear.
- Certainty: The consolidated trend offers a clear reference for legal professionals and citizens.
- Efficiency: By optimizing resources, the Court improves the productivity of the system.
Conclusions: A Step Forward for Justice
Judgment No. 9386 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a virtuous example of how jurisprudence can modernize the judicial system. By simplifying the procedures for the extraordinary appeal for error of fact, the Supreme Court accelerates the pace of justice and strengthens confidence in the system. For legal professionals and citizens, this ruling is a positive signal, confirming the commitment to a faster, clearer, and more effective justice system, in line with current needs.
