Special Oblation and Food Offenses: Cassation No. 25812/2025 Clarifies Non-Alternativity

Compliance with regulations in the food sector is crucial for public health and for avoiding criminal sanctions. The Court of Cassation, with its recent ruling No. 25812 of 2025, has provided an important clarification regarding two mechanisms for the extinction of food-related misdemeanors: special oblation under Article 162-bis of the Criminal Code and the extinction procedure provided by Law No. 283 of 1962. This ruling brings greater certainty and strategic guidance for operators and defense counsel.

The Cassation Ruling: Context and Issue

The legal question posed to the Supreme Court concerned the relationship between special oblation and the specific extinction procedure for food-related misdemeanors. The case, involving the defendant M. R., had generated interpretative doubts about the possibility of freely choosing between the two avenues. The Third Criminal Section of the Cassation, presided over by Judge G. Andreazza and with Judge E. Gai as rapporteur, resolved the query with a decision of significant practical impact.

In the context of criminal law concerning food, the option to request special oblation, as established by Article 162-bis of the Criminal Code, is not an alternative to that provided by Articles 12-ter et seq. of Law No. 283 of April 30, 1962, as it can be exercised both when the conditions for the prescriptive-extinctive procedure provided by the special law are not met, and when the offender has decided not to avail themselves of it.

This maxim from the Cassation is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that special oblation (Article 162-bis c.p.), which allows for the extinction of a crime through the payment of a sum of money, is not an exclusive alternative to the extinction procedure of Law No. 283/1962. The latter, specific to food violations, requires compliance with prescriptions issued by the supervisory authority to regularize the situation. The Court has established that the offender can avail themselves of special oblation both when the conditions for the special procedure are not met, and when, even if they are met, they have chosen not to pursue it. This broadens defense options and offers greater flexibility in managing food-related misdemeanors.

Practical Implications for Operators and Defense

The decision of the Court of Cassation has direct consequences for operators in the food sector and for legal professionals. The non-alternativity of the two procedures means that:

• Strategic Flexibility: Even if the extinction procedure of Law No. 283/1962 is available, the offender can still opt for special oblation, perhaps for a quicker resolution or for other convenience assessments.
• Breadth of Options: Special oblation remains a viable path even if the violation cannot be remedied by the prescriptions of Law No. 283/1962 or if the individual deliberately chooses not to avail themselves of that route.
• Prevention of Inadmissibility: The ruling avoids restrictive interpretations that could preclude the offender from an opportunity to extinguish the crime, as occurred in the Monza case (GIP, 17/05/2023).

This interpretation promotes procedural economy and the principle of favor rei, ensuring that the various opportunities offered by the legal system are fully exploitable for the protection of interests.

Conclusions

The Cassation ruling No. 25812 of 2025 is a key reference for food criminal law. It clearly establishes that special oblation under Article 162-bis c.p. and the extinction procedure of Law No. 283/1962 are not exclusive alternatives, but distinct paths that offer strategic options for the extinction of misdemeanors. This clarity is essential for lawyers and businesses, enabling more effective and informed management of legal issues in the food sector. The advice of expert professionals is, now more than ever, indispensable for navigating this complex regulatory landscape with confidence.