Continued Offence and Written Procedure on Appeal: The Cassation Court's Conditions with Ruling 20993/2025

In the dynamic landscape of Italian criminal law, rulings by the Court of Cassation are fundamental in defining the application of norms. Ruling No. 20993 of May 20, 2025 (filed on June 5, 2025) addresses a matter of significant practical relevance: the conditions for admissibility of the request for recognition of the continuity of offences in an appeal judgment conducted under the written procedure. This decision, which involved defendant G. L. and was authored by Dr. A. S., provides crucial clarifications for legal practitioners.

The Continued Offence and the Written Procedure: Key Aspects

The continued offence (Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code) occurs when multiple legal violations are committed with a single criminal design, allowing for the application of a single, increased penalty, which is more favourable than material aggregation. The appeal judgment with written procedure, now a consolidated practice, involves the examination of the appeal through written submissions that replace oral discussion, streamlining procedural times but posing specific procedural challenges, such as the one addressed in the ruling in question.

The Request for Continuity on Appeal: The Condition Set by the Cassation Court

The central issue addressed by the Supreme Court concerned the possibility of requesting for the first time, in a written submission for a written appeal procedure, the recognition of the continuity between offences subject to the judgment and others already adjudicated with a final judgment. The Court of Appeal of Naples had deemed such a request inadmissible. The Cassation Court, presided over by Dr. A. P., confirmed this orientation, establishing an essential condition:

In an appeal judgment conducted under the written procedure, the recognition of the continuity of offences to be judged and offences already judged with a final judgment can be requested for the first time in the written submission, which substitutes oral discussion, only if the judgment concerning the already adjudicated facts became final following the submission of the grounds for appeal.

This maxim clarifies that the request for continuity in a written appeal procedure is admissible via written submission only if the judgment concerning the already adjudicated facts became final after the submission of the grounds for appeal. The ratio decidendi is to prevent dilatory strategies: if the finality of the judgment on the "prior" offences was already known (or knowable) at the time of the grounds for appeal, the request should have been made at that stage. This principle, in line with Articles 597 and 598 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizes timeliness and procedural fairness, preventing the instrumental use of the institution.

Key Points and Legal References

Ruling No. 20993/2025 offers precise guidance for the defence:

• The request for continuity is not admissible on appeal if the judgment on prior offences was already final at the time of the submission of the grounds for appeal.
• The written submission in the written procedure is equivalent to oral discussion for the purpose of making the request, but always respecting the temporal condition.
• It is the party's burden to demonstrate that the finality of the judgment on already adjudicated offences occurred after the submission of the grounds for appeal.

This ruling is part of a consolidated case law, reiterating the importance of the correct management of procedural times for the application of Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code and procedural norms (Articles 597, 598 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in the context of appeals.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 20993 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is an essential reference for managing requests for continued offences in appeal judgments conducted under the written procedure. It underscores the importance of defence diligence and procedural timeliness, setting a clear limit on the introduction of new issues at an advanced stage. A thorough understanding of these conditions is crucial for criminal lawyers to establish effective defence strategies and best protect the interests of their clients.