Restorative Justice and Referral to the Supreme Court: The Important Judgment no. 25192 of 2025

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 25192 of 2025 (filed on 09/07/2025), has issued a decision of particular significance that sheds light on the relationship between restorative justice and the criminal proceedings, especially when restorative outcomes emerge in advanced stages of the trial. This ruling, presided over by Dr. E. A. and with Dr. M. S. V. as rapporteur, represents a firm stance on the obligation of the trial judge to assess the benefits derived from a restorative justice process, even if initiated and concluded after the appeal judgment, but before the final decision of the Supreme Court.

Restorative Justice in the Italian Criminal System: A New Perspective

The introduction of restorative justice into our legal system, particularly with the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 150/2022), marked a paradigm shift. Article 129-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure has become the focal point of this innovation, defining restorative justice as any program, implemented on a voluntary basis, that aims to resolve the conflict between the victim and the perpetrator of the crime, promoting the reparation of damage and reconciliation. This complementary approach to traditional justice is not limited to punishment but seeks to restore, as far as possible, the social and personal balance disturbed by the crime, promoting the accountability of the perpetrator and the recognition of the victim.

Restorative justice programs can take various forms, from direct criminal mediation between victim and offender, to group meetings, to indirect forms of reparation. The primary objective is the achievement of a "restorative outcome," which is not necessarily a financial agreement, but can materialize in apologies, commitments to future conduct, or symbolic acts of reparation.

The Case in Question: Judgment no. 25192 of 2025 by the Supreme Court

The procedural case that led to judgment no. 25192 of 2025 concerned the defendant D. P.M. L. P. The crucial point is that the restorative justice program was initiated and achieved a positive outcome at a particular moment: after the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bari (rendered on 11/05/2023), but during the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation. In other words, when the Supreme Court was to decide, the restorative outcome had already been achieved, but it had not been assessed by the trial judges, simply because it did not yet exist at the time of their decision.

Faced with this situation, the Supreme Court annulled the contested judgment with referral, ordering the Court of Appeal to re-evaluate the case in light of the subsequent restorative outcome. This decision is of fundamental importance because it establishes a clear principle: the effectiveness of restorative justice cannot be precluded by the procedural timing, provided that the outcome is achieved before the final ruling.

The Supreme Court of Cassation must order the annulment with referral of the contested judgment in cases where the appellate judge, after having rendered such decision, has accepted the defendant's request to initiate a restorative justice program pursuant to art. 129-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, during the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the final report on the achieved restorative outcome has been received, with the trial judge being required to verify the existence of the prerequisites for granting the mitigating circumstance referred to in art. 62, paragraph one, no. 6, of the Criminal Code, and other benefits promptly requested by the defense with the filing of the appeal.

This maxim of the judgment highlights a cornerstone principle of our legal system: the need for a substantive application of justice. In practice, if a defendant undertakes a restorative justice process and obtains a positive result, this cannot be ignored simply because it occurred after a certain procedural phase. The Supreme Court orders the trial judge to "verify the existence of the prerequisites for granting the mitigating circumstance referred to in art. 62, paragraph one, no. 6, of the Criminal Code, and other benefits promptly requested." This means that the restorative outcome can significantly impact the quantification of the penalty or the application of other less punitive measures. The mitigating circumstance referred to in art. 62, no. 6, of the Criminal Code, which provides for a reduction of penalty for those who have endeavored to eliminate or mitigate the harmful or dangerous consequences of the crime or have fully compensated for the damage, finds its direct application here in the context of restorative justice, which, by its nature, aims precisely at such compensation or mitigation of consequences.

The Impact of the Decision: Benefits and Legal Principles

The ruling of the Supreme Court has a significant impact both for defendants and for the interpretation of criminal law. It reinforces the principle that the judge must consider all relevant circumstances for determining the penalty and granting benefits, including those that arise subsequently. Among the benefits that the trial judge will have to evaluate, by virtue of the restorative outcome, are:

• The granting of the general mitigating circumstance referred to in art. 62, paragraph one, no. 6, of the Criminal Code, relating to the compensation of damages or the elimination of the consequences of the crime.
• The assessment pursuant to art. 133 of the Criminal Code, which governs the criteria for the commisuration of the penalty, taking into account the gravity of the crime, the offender's propensity to commit crimes, and the modalities of their conduct after the crime, which certainly includes adherence to and success in a restorative process.
• The possibility of accessing substitute penalties or alternative measures to detention, where the legal prerequisites allow and the restorative outcome contributes to a favorable prognosis of non-recidivism.

It is crucial to emphasize that the request to initiate the restorative justice program must have been "promptly requested by the defense with the filing of the appeal." This aspect is fundamental to prevent abuses and to ensure that the restorative initiative is part of a legitimate defense strategy and not a mere delaying tactic. The judgment underscores the importance that the trial judge verify the effectiveness of the restorative outcome and its genuineness, not just its formal existence.

Conclusions: An Important Signal for Italian Justice

Judgment no. 25192 of 2025 by the Supreme Court of Cassation is not just a ruling on a single case, but a clear signal of the direction the Italian judicial system is taking. It reiterates the centrality of restorative justice as a tool for more complete and effective justice, capable of going beyond mere repression to embrace reparation and reconciliation. For legal professionals, this decision is a reminder to always consider the opportunity for restorative paths, even when the proceedings seem to be heading towards their final stages. For citizens, it is confirmation that the criminal justice system is increasingly oriented towards valuing the willingness to compensate and reconcile, offering new opportunities for those called to account for their actions. Ultimately, a step forward towards a more humane justice that is attentive to the relational dynamics underlying criminal conflict.