Court Costs in Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court and the Role of the Civilly Liable Party in Ruling No. 28201 of 2025

In the complex landscape of procedural law, issues relating to legal costs often represent a slippery slope, capable of generating uncertainty and litigation. The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 28201 of 08/07/2025, intervenes precisely on one of these crucial aspects, clarifying the allocation of court costs in a particular context: that in which, in criminal proceedings, civil action has been brought against the defendant and the civilly liable party, but only the defendant decides to appeal the judgment. This decision, authored by Dr. D. C., offers important food for thought for lawyers, defendants, and civil parties, providing a valuable guide for interpreting the dynamics of procedural defeat.

The Legal Context: Civilly Liable Party and Appeals in Criminal Proceedings

To fully understand the scope of the ruling under examination, it is essential to frame the role of the civilly liable party within criminal proceedings. Article 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) allows for the summoning of the civilly liable party, i.e., the party who, under civil law, must answer for the damage caused by the crime (consider, for example, the owner of a vehicle for damages caused by the driver). Their presence in criminal proceedings aims to ensure that the civil party, i.e., the person harmed by the crime, has the opportunity to obtain compensation for damages within the same procedural context in which criminal liability is established.

Once the first-instance judgment is issued, both the defendant (Mr. G. P. in this case) and the civilly liable party have the right to appeal it. However, what happens if only one of them decides to exercise this option, while the other "acquiesces" to the decision, meaning they accept it without filing an appeal? It is precisely on this specific scenario that the Court of Cassation has sought to provide clarity.

The Principle of Law in Ruling No. 28201/2025 and its Meaning

The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 28201 of 2025, has enunciated a principle of law of considerable importance, which deserves detailed analysis:

In matters of court costs, acquiescence to the judgment by the civilly liable party excludes, in the event that only the defendant has unsuccessfully filed an appeal, the possibility of a situation of defeat being established in the relevant proceedings, with a consequent order to pay costs in favor of the civil party, with such costs remaining the sole responsibility of the defendant.

This principle crystallizes a fundamental concept: if the civilly liable party decides not to appeal the first-instance judgment, demonstrating acceptance of its content (even if unfavorable), they cannot be considered a "defeated" party in the subsequent degree of judgment, should the appeal have been filed exclusively by the defendant and proved unsuccessful. In other words, the acquiescence of the civilly liable party "isolates" them from the outcome of the defendant's appeal.

This means that if the defendant appeals to a higher court or to the Cassation, and their appeal is rejected, the court costs incurred by the civil party to defend themselves in that degree of judgment cannot be charged to the civilly liable party who chose not to appeal. It will be solely the defendant, as the losing party in the appeal they themselves filed, who will have to bear these costs. This principle is in line with Article 541, paragraph 1, of the CPP, which provides for the defendant's conviction to pay costs in favor of the civil party in case of conviction.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The Cassation's decision has significant practical implications for all parties involved in criminal proceedings:

• For the Defendant: If the defendant decides to appeal a judgment that finds them guilty and civilly liable, they must be aware that, in the event of a negative outcome of the appeal and acquiescence by the civilly liable party, the civil party's legal costs relating to that degree of judgment will fall entirely on them.
• For the Civilly Liable Party: The ruling offers important protection to the civilly liable party who chooses not to appeal. Their decision to accept the first-instance verdict exempts them from further financial burdens arising from the appeals of others. This clarity can influence their defense strategy and risk assessment.
• For the Civil Party: The civil party, while entitled to compensation and reimbursement of legal costs, must correctly identify the party to claim against for the costs of each individual degree of judgment. In this specific scenario, the sole debtor for the costs of the defendant's unsuccessful appeal will be the defendant themselves.

This orientation is in continuity with previous consistent rulings (such as No. 31855 of 2021 Rv. 281938-01), reinforcing the interpretative consistency of the Supreme Court on a sensitive issue such as court costs, and refers to the general provisions on appeals and defeat, as outlined in Articles 587 and 601 of the CPP.

Conclusions: Legal Clarity and Legal Certainty

Ruling No. 28201 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. E. D. S., represents an important piece in the construction of greater clarity and legal certainty regarding court costs in criminal proceedings. It reiterates the principle that defeat, for the purpose of ordering costs, must be assessed in relation to the procedural activity actually undertaken by each party. The acquiescence of the civilly liable party, far from being a passive act, assumes a precise legal significance, excluding their liability for costs generated by the appeal of another party.

This ruling not only offers a solution to an interpretative question but also encourages greater awareness and consideration of procedural choices, both by the defendant and the civilly liable party. A thorough understanding of these mechanisms is essential for the correct management of defense strategies and for the best protection of their clients' interests, ensuring that the economic consequences of legal action are always predictable and justified.