Justice Costs and Prison Maintenance: The Court of Cassation on Partial Remission (Judgment no. 22284/2025)

The issue of debt remission for justice costs and prison maintenance is a crucial aspect of penitentiary law, directly impacting the economic sphere and the possibility of social reintegration for individuals who have served a sentence. On this delicate matter, the Court of Cassation has once again ruled with judgment no. 22284, filed on June 13, 2025, offering a fundamental interpretative clarification that deserves the utmost attention.

The Regulatory Context and the Issue of Partial Remission

The regulation of debt remission for court costs and prison maintenance finds its primary regulation in Article 6 of Presidential Decree of May 30, 2002, no. 115, known as the Consolidated Text on Justice Costs. This provision establishes the conditions and procedures through which a convicted person, who is indigent, can be exempted from paying these charges. The institute is conceived as a protective mechanism to ensure that the sentence does not translate into an unsustainable additional economic burden, thereby facilitating the path to recovery and reintegration.

The issue that has often fueled legal debate, and which was the subject of the Supreme Court's ruling, concerns the possibility of applying remission partially. In other words, the question was whether the judicial authority could grant exemption from the debt for only a portion of the sums owed, perhaps considering an economic situation that was not entirely compromised but still difficult. In the specific case that led to the judgment under review, the Surveillance Judge of Milan had, by order of December 2, 2024, ordered a quashing with referral, suggesting the existence of an interpretative conflict that needed to be resolved. The defendant, A. C., was at the center of this debate, with the Attorney General L. G. expressing an opinion consistent with the subsequent decision of the Court of Cassation.

The Position of the Court of Cassation: No to Partial Remission

The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. R. and with Dr. R. M. as rapporteur and author, addressed the issue decisively, affirming a clear and unequivocal legal principle. The maxim extracted from judgment no. 22284/2025 is as follows:

Partial remission of debt for court costs is not permitted, as it is a measure entirely detached from the provisions contained in Article 6 of Presidential Decree no. 115 of May 30, 2002, which fully regulates the institute of debt remission for trial and prison maintenance costs.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 6 of Presidential Decree 115/2002, in regulating the institute of debt remission, does so in a “complete” manner, meaning exhaustively and comprehensively. This implies that the provision does not foresee, either implicitly or explicitly, the possibility of partial remission. The institute is configured as an “all or nothing” measure: either the convicted person meets the requirements of indigence and obtains total debt remission, or they do not meet them and must bear the entire amount. The introduction of partial remission would, according to the Court of Cassation, be a measure