Damage to Property Destined for Public Reverence: The Court of Cassation Confirms Ex Officio Prosecution (Judgment No. 27177/2025)

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and rulings from the Court of Cassation play a fundamental role in shaping the interpretation and application of laws. A recent and significant intervention by the Supreme Court, with Judgment No. 27177 filed on July 24, 2025 (Pres. B. S., Rapporteur A. L.), has firmly settled a matter of great importance: the prosecutability of the crime of damaging property destined for public reverence. This decision is particularly significant in light of recent legislative amendments introduced by Legislative Decree No. 31 of 2024, known for extending the complaint-based prosecution regime to several criminal offenses. But what does this mean exactly, and what are the implications of this ruling?

The Regulatory Context: Cartabia Reform and Criminal Offense Prosecution

The Cartabia Reform, implemented through various legislative decrees, including Legislative Decree of March 19, 2024, No. 31, had as one of its main objectives to streamline the judicial system by introducing, among other things, an extension of the complaint-based prosecution regime for a series of offenses that were previously prosecuted ex officio. The underlying idea is to leave the victim with the choice of whether or not to initiate criminal proceedings for less serious offenses or those that primarily affect private interests, thereby freeing up resources for more complex investigations.

Specifically, Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b) of Legislative Decree No. 31 of 2024 amended Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1) of the Criminal Code, extending complaint-based prosecution to acts committed on property exposed for necessity, custom, or destination to public trust, by referencing Article 625, paragraph one, no. 7, of the Criminal Code. This raised an interpretive question: does this extension also apply to property that, in addition to being exposed to public trust, is destined for public reverence?

The Position of the Court of Cassation: Why Ex Officio Prosecution Remains

The Supreme Court, with the judgment in question, responded clearly and unequivocally: NO. The crime of damaging property destined for public reverence continues to be prosecuted ex officio, regardless of recent legislative amendments. The ruling, which rejected the appeal filed by the defendant Z. G. against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of L'Aquila, highlighted a fundamental distinction.

The reason for this exclusion lies in the special nature of the legal interest protected. The damage to property exposed to public trust (Article 625, paragraph 1, no. 7 of the Criminal Code) primarily concerns the trust that the community places in the protection of unattended property. However, when the damaged property assumes a symbolic or commemorative value for the community, the offense is not merely patrimonial or an offense against public trust, but strikes a much deeper value: the collective sensitivity and respect for historical memory, national or religious symbols, or objects of profound social importance. The judgment specifically concerned the damage to a laurel wreath, which served to commemorate the victims of the Foibe. An act that, due to its intrinsic offensiveness towards collective memory, transcends mere patrimonial damage.

The Court's reasoning is based on the need to protect a primary public interest, which cannot be left to the discretion of the individual or the victim. Ex officio prosecution ensures that the State can intervene to protect property of high social and symbolic value, even in the absence of a complaint, recognizing the seriousness of the act and its impact on the community.

• Offenses Prosecutable by Complaint: Require the initiative of the victim to initiate criminal proceedings.
• Offenses Prosecutable Ex Officio: The judicial authority can act independently as soon as it becomes aware of the offense, without the need for a complaint.
• Legislative Decree 31/2024: Extended complaint-based prosecution for many offenses, but with precise limitations.

The Ruling's Headnote and Our Commentary

The crime of damaging property destined for public reverence is prosecutable ex officio, even following the extension of the complaint-based prosecution regime, carried out by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), Legislative Decree of March 19, 2024, No. 31, concerning the cases provided for by Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1), of the Criminal Code, relating to acts committed on property exposed for necessity or custom or for destination to public trust under Article 625, paragraph one, no. 7, of the Criminal Code (Case concerning the damage to a laurel wreath, commemorating the victims of the Foibe).

This headnote crystallizes the principle that the legislator, while aiming for greater procedural efficiency, did not intend to diminish the protection of property representing the memory and shared values of a community. The damage to a laurel wreath commemorating the victims of the Foibe is not a simple act of vandalism, but an offense to the sentiment of respect and collective historical memory. The Court of Cassation, presided over by B. S. and with A. L. as rapporteur, has skillfully interpreted the legislative intent, distinguishing between the mere damage to property exposed to public trust and damage that affects objects of "public reverence." In the latter case, the offense is deeper and more widespread, involving the entire community and therefore justifying the State's ex officio intervention.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 27177 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important warning and an essential clarification for legal professionals and citizens alike. It reiterates the firm will of the legal system to protect the symbols and places of collective memory, recognizing their inestimable and indispensable value for social cohesion. Despite reforms tending towards greater complaint-based prosecution, there are still areas where public interest prevails, ensuring more robust and unconditional protection. The damage to property destined for public reverence is not an offense that can be lightly dismissed; it is an act that challenges civic conscience and deserves the full attention of justice.