Abbreviated Judgment and Civilly Liable Party: The Inadmissibility of the Exclusion Request According to Judgment 29227/2025

Italian criminal procedural law presents numerous complexities, especially regarding special proceedings and the participation of civil parties and civilly liable parties. On this topic, the Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 29227 of 2025, has provided essential clarification, reaffirming a cardinal principle concerning the inadmissibility of certain requests in abbreviated judgments.

The ruling originates from a case of sexual violence, where a priest was the defendant and the Archdiocese had constituted itself as a civil party. The defendant had requested the exclusion of the Archdiocese, raising a question of procedural compatibility. The Court of Cassation declared such a request inadmissible, based on the intrinsic logic of the abbreviated judgment.

Who are the Civilly Liable Party and the Civil Party in Criminal Proceedings?

In criminal proceedings, the civil party is the victim of the crime who seeks compensation for damages suffered directly within the criminal proceedings. The civilly liable party, on the other hand, is a third party who, although not having committed the crime, is civilly obligated to compensate for the damage caused by the defendant (for example, an entity for the actions of its subordinates, such as the Archdiocese in the specific case). Their presence allows for the determination of the compensation aspect within the same criminal proceedings.

The Abbreviated Judgment and the Automatic Exclusion of the Civilly Liable Party

The abbreviated judgment (Articles 438 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is an alternative procedure to the trial, which concludes with a decision based on the documents in the Public Prosecutor's file. This choice, often aimed at obtaining a sentence reduction, entails specific procedural consequences. Article 87, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fundamental, establishing the exclusion of the civilly liable party "ex iure" (by law) upon the commencement of the abbreviated judgment. This provision is logical, as the abbreviated procedure is not suitable for in-depth examination of the third party's civil liability, which would require specific investigation.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: 'Lack of Interest'

The request for the exclusion of the civil party, potentially summonable as a civilly liable party, made by the defendant in the context of an abbreviated judgment, is inadmissible due to lack of interest, given that the commencement of the alternative procedure entails "ex iure" the exclusion of the civilly liable party pursuant to Article 87, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the consequent elimination of any possible incompatibility of procedural positions. (Case concerning sexual violence committed by a priest, in which the defendant had requested the exclusion of the Archdiocese, which had constituted itself as a civil party).

The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 29227/2025, clarifies that the defendant's request to exclude the civilly liable party is inadmissible due to "lack of interest." This means that if the law (Article 87, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure) already provides for the automatic exclusion of the civilly liable party "ex iure" in the abbreviated judgment, there is no need or legal interest for the defendant to make such a request. It becomes superfluous and devoid of practical utility. The law itself resolves any potential conflict of procedural positions.

In the case at hand, the defendant had opted for the abbreviated judgment. Consequently, the position of the Archdiocese, despite having constituted itself as a civil party, as a potential civilly liable party, was already automatically excluded from the procedure. The request for exclusion was therefore unfounded.

Practical Implications and Jurisprudential Trends

This judgment strengthens the clarity and efficiency of criminal proceedings. For legal professionals, it implies:

• Greater Clarity: It confirms the automatic exclusion of the civilly liable party in the abbreviated procedure.
• Efficiency: It prevents the formulation of redundant requests that would slow down the procedural process.
• Awareness: It emphasizes the importance of thoroughly understanding the procedural consequences of choosing special proceedings.

The ruling aligns with established jurisprudence (as indicated by references to precedents 5860/2012 and 44571/2014), which has always valued the specialty of the abbreviated judgment and its impact on the participation of civil parties and civilly liable parties. The Court of Cassation, by doing so, consolidates the coherence of the criminal procedural system.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29227 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a firm point in understanding the abbreviated judgment and the role of the civilly liable party. By reiterating the inadmissibility due to lack of interest of superfluous requests, the Supreme Court not only simplifies the procedure but also offers clear guidance for lawyers and judges. Understanding these dynamics is fundamental for an effective and correct management of criminal proceedings, ensuring justice and the protection of rights.