Court of Cassation, Judgment 29552/2025: The Abnormality of the Order to Recommence Civil Proceedings

In the Italian legal landscape, the correct interpretation and application of procedural rules are fundamental to ensuring legal certainty and the protection of parties. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, judgment no. 29552 of July 9, 2025 (filed on August 18, 2025), fits precisely into this context, clarifying a crucial aspect relating to the transition of proceedings from the criminal to the civil sector. This decision, which saw Autostrade per l'Italia S.p.A. as the defendant and U. Saccucci as the civil party, with the presidency of Dr. G. Verga and the reporting of Dr. A. Saraco, offers important food for thought on the abnormality of procedural acts and the continuity of proceedings.

The Context of the Decision: From Criminal to Civil

The procedural case that led to the judgment under review originated from proceedings in which the Court of Appeal of Rome, by an order of February 28, 2025, had referred the parties to the civil judge for the continuation of the proceedings. So far, nothing unusual, as Article 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) expressly provides for this possibility, particularly when it comes to claims for damages arising from a crime, which often cannot be decided in criminal proceedings for reasons of complexity or procedural economy. However, the order of the Court of Appeal contained a specific instruction that raised the legal issue subject to the appeal to the Court of Cassation: the imposition on the parties to proceed with the "recommencement" of the proceedings before the civil judge.

It is precisely this request for "recommencement" that the Supreme Court censured, annulling the decision of the Court of Appeal in part without referral. But why was such an instruction deemed so serious as to be classified as "abnormal" and, consequently, subject to appeal to the Court of Cassation?

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Fundamental Principle

An order pursuant to art. 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which the court of appeal, in referring the parties to the civil judge for the continuation of the proceedings, has imposed on them to proceed with its "recommencement" before the latter, is subject to appeal to the Court of Cassation, as it suffers from structural abnormality, given that the indicated provision provides for its mere transfer from the criminal to the civil sector, without interruption or the need for party initiatives.

The above ruling summarizes the core of the issue. The Court of Cassation, referring to established principles and previous case law (such as Joint Sections no. 5307 of 2008), reiterated the substantial difference between "recommencement" and "transfer" of proceedings. The "structural abnormality" mentioned in the judgment refers to a procedural act that, while formally falling within the type provided for by law, radically deviates from its legal model, generating an incurable defect that compromises its function.

In the specific case, Article 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the c.p.p. governs the "transfer" of proceedings. This means that the proceedings, once referred to the civil judge, continue in that capacity without the parties having to take further initiating steps to "restart" them. The transfer ensures procedural continuity, a cornerstone principle of our legal system aimed at avoiding delays and unjustified burdens for the parties.

Reasons for Abnormality and Practical Consequences

The imposition of "recommencement" by the Court of Appeal was deemed abnormal because it introduced a burden not provided for by law and interrupted the continuity that the rule intends to ensure. "Recommencement," in fact, is typical of situations where the proceedings have been interrupted or suspended and require an initiating act by the parties to be reactivated, often within strict deadlines. Transfer, on the other hand, operates automatically, ensuring that the proceedings continue without interruption and without the need for new procedural initiatives by the parties, who might be unaware of such burdens or incur forfeiture.

This distinction is crucial for several reasons:

• **Procedural Continuity**: Transfer ensures that the passage between jurisdictions does not create procedural "gaps."
• **Protection of Parties**: It prevents parties, particularly the civil party, from having to face additional procedural burdens or risk forfeiture for not having "recommenced" proceedings that, by law, should simply continue.
• **System Efficiency**: It simplifies the transfer of proceedings, making it more streamlined and less prone to formal obstacles.
• **Principle of Due Process**: It contributes to ensuring a fair trial without undue delay, in line with Article 111 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court of Cassation has therefore reiterated that the correct interpretation of art. 573, paragraph 1-bis, of the c.p.p. implies a mere transfer, not a recommencement, and that any contrary imposition constitutes a structural abnormality of the act, making it appealable.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Protection of Parties

Judgment no. 29552 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. Verga and reported by Dr. A. Saraco, represents an important clarification on criminal and civil procedural law. It strengthens the principle of continuity of proceedings and the protection of parties, preventing procedural errors or misinterpretations of the rules from burdening those seeking justice. The decision underscores the importance of a rigorous application of legal provisions, particularly those governing transitions between different stages or jurisdictions, to preserve the integrity of the process and ensure legal certainty. For legal professionals and citizens alike, this ruling serves as a reminder to vigilantly oversee the correct management of procedures, ensuring that the rights of the parties are always fully respected.