Civil Party's Costs in Appellate Proceedings: The Court of Cassation and the Correct Remedy (Judgment no. 27073/2025)

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal procedural law, the issue of procedural costs, particularly those incurred by the civil party, plays a fundamentally important role. A recent intervention by the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 27073 filed on July 24, 2025 (rapporteur and author Dr. A. R., president Dr. F. G.), has provided a decisive clarification regarding the available remedy in case of an omitted ruling on the civil party's costs in appellate proceedings. This ruling is essential for understanding procedural dynamics and ensuring the correct protection of rights.

The Civil Party in Criminal Proceedings and the Right to Compensation

The civil party is a subject who, within criminal proceedings, acts to obtain compensation for damages suffered due to the crime. Their presence aims to protect the victim's economic and moral interests, alongside the State's criminal action. Once the defendant is convicted, the civil party is entitled not only to compensation for damages but also to reimbursement of legal costs incurred to participate in the proceedings. This provision is a corollary of the general principle that whoever wins a lawsuit is entitled to have their costs reimbursed.

The problem arises when the appellate judge, in issuing the judgment, omits to rule on the procedural costs incurred by the civil party. In such cases, it is crucial to identify the correct procedural means to remedy this omission. This is where the Court of Cassation's judgment no. 27073/2025 intervenes with clarity.

Omitted Ruling on Costs: Material Error or Defect of Legitimacy?

The central issue addressed by the Supreme Court concerns the nature of the omitted ruling on costs: is it a mere material error, correctable through the simplified procedure provided for by art. 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or a genuine defect in the decision, requiring an ordinary appeal, such as an appeal to the Court of Cassation pursuant to art. 606 c.p.p.?

The Court of Cassation, in the specific case involving Z. P.M. P. R. as the defendant and declaring the appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Catania of 20/12/2024 inadmissible, forcefully reiterated an already established principle, albeit with some dissenting precedents.

The omission to rule on the costs incurred by the civil party in appellate proceedings is not amendable by the remedy provided for by art. 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it involves discretionary assessments on the merits of the request and the amount of the award, which can only be challenged through ordinary means of appeal.

This maxim is the core of the decision. Article 130 c.p.p. allows for the correction of material errors or omissions that do not affect the substance of the decision, such as a typo or an obvious calculation error. However, the award of legal costs is not a purely arithmetic or automatic operation. It involves a series of discretionary assessments by the judge, including:

• Verification of the merits of the civil party's reimbursement request.
• Assessment of the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs incurred, often in relation to legal tariffs and the complexity of the proceedings.
• Analysis of partial defeat or partial victory.

These are not simple corrections but genuine substantive decisions requiring evaluative activity by the judge. Therefore, the omitted ruling is not a formal or material defect but a gap in the decision that affects its substantive content. Consequently, it cannot be remedied through a simplified procedure but must be submitted to the review of a higher court through ordinary means of appeal, in this case, an appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Practical Implications and Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation no. 27073/2025, in line with consistent precedents (such as judgments no. 13111/2016 and no. 33135/2020), consolidates the jurisprudential orientation on the matter. For lawyers and civil parties, this means that in case of a lack of ruling on costs in appellate proceedings, the only viable path is an appeal to the Court of Cassation, presenting a specific grievance on the point. Attempting the route of material error correction would be a procedural mistake, destined to be declared inadmissible.

This judgment underscores the importance of correctly formulated judicial measures and the need for legal professionals to thoroughly understand procedural mechanisms to effectively protect the interests of their clients. The distinction between material error and a defect of legitimacy is subtle but crucial, and the Supreme Court has provided another piece to clarify the boundaries between these two situations, thereby ensuring legal certainty and the correct application of procedural rules.