Civil Interests in Extinguished Criminal Proceedings: Cassation 24300/2025 and the 'More Likely Than Not' Rule

In the complex Italian legal landscape, the protection of civil interests within criminal proceedings is a topic of constant relevance and debate. What happens, in fact, when a crime is extinguished – for example, due to statute of limitations or amnesty – but the injured party's claims for damages remain? The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 24300, filed on July 1, 2025, offers a fundamental clarification, aligning with previous directives from the Constitutional Court and providing important guidelines for the application of judgment and evidentiary rules. This ruling, authored by Dr. L. V. and presided over by Dr. A. M., addresses the delicate issue of ascertaining civil liability in the absence of a final criminal conviction.

The 'More Likely Than Not' Rule: A New Standard for Compensation

The focal point of the Cassation's judgment no. 24300/2025 lies in the application of the so-called "more likely than not" rule for decisions on civil interests pursuant to Article 578 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision states that when a crime is extinguished due to amnesty or statute of limitations, but the criminal judge must decide on the provisions and counts of the judgment concerning civil interests, he "shall ascertain the civil liability of the defendant." The Constitutional Court, with judgment no. 182 of 2021, had already established that, in such circumstances, the criminal judge must apply the civil standard of proof of "more likely than not," rather than the "high degree of logical probability" typical of criminal proceedings, which requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In matters of appeals, the judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 182 of 2021, according to which, upon declaration of extinction of the crime due to statute of limitations or amnesty, the criminal judge, called upon to decide solely for the purposes of the provisions and counts of the judgment concerning civil interests ex art. 578 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to apply the civil standard of proof of "more likely than not," rather than that of "high degree of logical probability," does not preclude that the ascertainment of liability for civil purposes must be conducted by applying the procedural and evidentiary rules of criminal proceedings, so that, as Article 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, the testimony of the victim, who has constituted themselves as a civil party in the proceedings, retains the value of testimony, albeit subject, according to general principles, to rigorous reliability checks.

This maxim is of crucial importance. It confirms that the change concerns the *criterion for evaluating evidence* for civil liability – a less stringent criterion than that in criminal proceedings – but does not alter the *procedural and evidentiary rules* of criminal proceedings. In other words, the judge must still operate within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while adopting a standard of judgment closer to the civil one to determine if the damage and its attribution are "more likely than not." This ensures that the victim, even in the absence of a criminal conviction, can have their right to compensation recognized, without facing an almost insurmountable burden of proof.

The Value of the Victim's Testimony: A Crucial Role

Another fundamental aspect clarified by judgment no. 24300/2025 concerns the testimony of the victim, who has constituted themselves as a civil party in the proceedings. The Cassation's ruling categorically excludes the application of Article 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the incapacity to testify for those who have an interest in the case that could legitimize their participation in the judgment. In criminal proceedings, the victim, despite having a direct interest in compensation, does not lose their capacity to testify. Their deposition, therefore, fully retains the value of testimony.

However, as clarified by the Supreme Court, such testimony is "subject, according to general principles, to rigorous reliability checks." This means that:

• The victim's deposition is not automatically considered full proof.
• The judge must evaluate it with extreme care, cross-referencing it with other elements of evidence.
• The reliability of the victim must be verified based on objective and subjective criteria, such as the coherence of the account, the absence of contradictions, compatibility with other established facts, and any personal interest in the outcome of the judgment.

This balanced approach protects, on the one hand, the victim's right to be heard and to assert their claims, and on the other hand, ensures a fair trial, preventing an economic interest from compromising the objectivity of the evidence.

Conclusions: A Necessary Balance for Justice

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 24300 of 2025, in harmony with the Constitutional Court no. 182 of 2021, represents an important piece in the Italian justice system. It confirms an orientation aimed at ensuring more effective compensatory protection for victims of crimes, even when the progression of criminal proceedings halts due to extinction causes. The application of the "more likely than not" criterion for civil interests and the safeguarding of the victim's testimonial value, albeit with due caution, demonstrate the pursuit of a balance between the demands of criminal justice and those of civil protection. For legal professionals and citizens alike, this ruling underscores the importance of correct interpretation of the law and careful evaluation of the evidentiary framework, in order to ensure that every damage finds just redress.