Cartabia Reform and Prosecutability: The Supreme Court (Judgment no. 28514/2025) on Aggravating Circumstances Post-Complaint

Italian criminal justice has been profoundly influenced by Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2020, commonly known as the Cartabia Reform. This reform introduced significant changes to the prosecutability regime of numerous offenses, transforming many from offenses prosecutable ex officio to those requiring a private complaint. This shift has raised complex issues, particularly concerning the management of ongoing proceedings or situations where an offense, initially prosecutable upon complaint, subsequently reveals aggravating circumstances that render it prosecutable ex officio again. It is precisely on one of these delicate matters that the Court of Cassation has ruled with judgment no. 28514, filed on August 4, 2025, providing fundamental clarification for legal professionals and citizens.

The Heart of the Matter: The Cartabia Reform and Prosecutability

The Cartabia Reform, with the aim of reducing judicial workload and favoring out-of-court settlements for offenses of lesser social concern, has expanded the catalog of offenses prosecutable only upon a complaint filed by the victim. This means that, for a series of offenses, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or continued if the victim does not expressly manifest the will to prosecute the perpetrator, within the peremptory term of three months from the date of knowledge of the act constituting the offense (Art. 124 of the Criminal Code, referenced by Art. 85 of Legislative Decree 150/2020 for transitional provisions). However, some offenses, while prosecutable upon complaint in their basic form, become prosecutable ex officio in the presence of specific aggravating circumstances. The judgment in question focuses precisely on this dynamic, particularly for the offense of theft (Art. 624 of the Criminal Code), which in its simple form has become prosecutable upon complaint, but reverts to being prosecutable ex officio if aggravated, for example, under Art. 625 of the Criminal Code.

The Specific Case and the Supreme Court's Ruling

The case brought to the attention of the Supreme Court concerned a defendant, P. R., accused of electricity theft. The offense of theft, as mentioned, falls under those for which the Cartabia Reform provided for a shift to the prosecutability-upon-complaint regime. The crucial question was whether the Public Prosecutor (in this case, P.M. C. S.) could charge an aggravating circumstance – which rendered the offense prosecutable ex officio – even if the deadline for filing the complaint had already expired and no complaint had been filed. The Court of Salerno, with a judgment of 18/10/2024, had evidently adopted a different position, which was subsequently annulled with referral by the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 28514 of 2025, affirmed a principle of law of considerable importance, which we report here:

In matters concerning offenses that have become prosecutable upon complaint due to the modification introduced by the so-called Cartabia Reform – in this case, electricity theft – even if the term provided by the aforementioned Legislative Decree no. 85 has elapsed without a complaint being filed, the public prosecutor is permitted to charge an aggravating circumstance that renders the offense prosecutable ex officio, as the exercise of this power does not involve forfeiture or limitations, even if the aggravating element emerged before the initiation of criminal proceedings.

This ruling clarifies unequivocally that the Public Prosecutor's power to charge an aggravating circumstance, which transforms an offense from prosecutable upon complaint to prosecutable ex officio, is not subject to forfeiture deadlines. This means that, even if the victim has not filed a complaint within the prescribed three months, and even if the aggravating circumstance was already known before the initiation of criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor can still proceed with the supplementary charge. The reason for this orientation lies in the very nature of the aggravating circumstance, which, by modifying the prosecutability regime, reclassifies the offense among acts of greater gravity for which the public interest in repression prevails over the will of the individual.

Reasons for the Decision and Practical Implications

The decision of the Court of Cassation is based on a systematic interpretation of procedural and substantive norms. The Code of Criminal Procedure, in Articles 516 and 517, governs the possibility for the public prosecutor to amend the indictment or charge new aggravating circumstances. These provisions do not provide for time limits or preclusions related to the original prosecutability regime of the offense. The Supreme Court has therefore reiterated that the Public Prosecutor's power to initiate criminal proceedings for offenses prosecutable ex officio is full and cannot be curtailed by forfeitures concerning prosecutability upon complaint.

The implications of this judgment are manifold and significant:

• **Strengthening of the Public Prosecutor's power:** The ruling reaffirms the central role of the Public Prosecutor in ascertaining and charging criminal offenses, especially when they assume a gravity that justifies ex officio prosecution.
• **Protection of public interest:** The possibility of prosecuting offenses that, although initially considered less serious, subsequently reveal elements that make them more harmful to the community is guaranteed.
• **Interpretative clarity:** The judgment resolves a jurisprudential conflict that emerged after the Cartabia Reform, providing a uniform and predictable interpretation. Indeed, the text of the judgment itself cites several previous rulings, both in agreement and disagreement, indicating that the issue was subject to debate.
• **Importance of investigations:** It underscores the importance of complete and thorough investigations that can reveal any aggravating circumstances, even at a later stage than the original classification of the offense.

It is crucial to note that the Court of Cassation annulled the judgment of the Court of Salerno with referral, indicating that the matter will have to be re-examined in light of this principle. This demonstrates the Court's intention to ensure the uniform application of the law throughout the national territory.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 28514 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the landscape of post-Cartabia Reform criminal justice. It definitively clarifies that the emergence of an aggravating circumstance that renders an offense prosecutable ex officio allows the Public Prosecutor to proceed, even if the deadline for filing a complaint has expired. This principle balances the need for efficiency in the criminal system with the indispensable necessity of prosecuting more serious offenses, ensuring that the public interest in justice is not nullified by mere procedural preclusions related to the victim's will for less concerning offenses. For lawyers and citizens, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully evaluating all possible implications of a criminal act and the dynamics that can influence prosecutability, even in advanced stages of proceedings.