The Steward and the Qualification of Public Service Officer: Ruling 23333/2025

The line between private activity and a function of public interest is often the subject of complex legal issues. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 23333 of June 23, 2025 (Rv. 288185-01), has provided fundamental clarification on the figure of the "steward" responsible for access control at sporting events. This decision overturns a conviction for corruption and redefines the legal qualification of such operators, with significant implications for offenses against Public Administration.

The Case: Steward Convicted of Corruption

Mr. C. S., a steward, had been convicted of direct corruption (Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Code) by the Court of Appeal of Bologna for allowing, in exchange for money, entry to a football match for individuals without tickets. The Cassation Court had to determine whether a steward, in their role of ticket verification, could be considered a "public service officer" under criminal law. The Supreme Court's negative answer led to the annulment of the conviction without referral.

The Crucial Distinction: The Absence of "Conformative Acts"

Article 358 of the Criminal Code defines a public service officer as someone who exercises a public service without being a public official, requiring authoritative or certifying powers.

In matters of offenses against public administration, the "steward" responsible for checking access tickets to sporting events does not hold the subjective qualification of a public service officer, as the activity performed does not allow them to adopt conformative acts towards the controlled subjects, and criminal protection provided for public agents is extended to them, limited to specific offenses. (Case in which the Court annulled the conviction for the offense of direct corruption of a "steward" who, in exchange for a sum of money, had allowed entry to a football match for individuals without the relevant tickets).

The Court clarified that the steward's activity does not grant them the power to adopt "conformative acts" towards the controlled subjects. Their function is limited to verification and, in case of irregularities, to reporting or preventing access, without independent decision-making power of a public nature.

It is important to note that criminal protection for public agents is extended to stewards only for "specific offenses," such as violence or resistance (Articles 336, 337, 339 of the Criminal Code), by virtue of special regulations (e.g., Law 401/1989, Article 6 quater). This extension does not apply to corruption offenses, which require the specific qualification of a public official or public service officer.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This decision delimits the notion of a public service officer. The implications are:

• Stewards cannot be charged with offenses specific to Public Administration (e.g., corruption), which presuppose the qualification of a public official or public service officer.
• The possibility of charging stewards with other common offenses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud) remains valid.
• Criminal protection for offenses such as violence or resistance (L. 401/1989) continues to apply, recognizing their role in event security.

Conclusions: Clarity and Legal Certainty

Ruling No. 23333 of 2025 offers greater legal certainty. The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of a strict interpretation of subjective qualifications in offenses against Public Administration, highlighting the need to carefully analyze the nature of the functions performed.