Cassation Court Ruling No. 30119/2025: Admissibility and Evaluation of Civil Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Criminal Proceedings

Criminal law, in its relentless pursuit of procedural truth, often confronts the necessity of evaluating evidentiary elements originating from other branches of the legal system. The issue of the effectiveness of civil judgments and arbitral awards within criminal proceedings has long been a subject of debate and jurisprudential clarification. The Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 30119, filed on September 2, 2025, offers a significant contribution, delineating the boundaries of the applicability of Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) and reinforcing the principle of free evaluation of evidence by the criminal judge.

The Principle of Autonomy and Means of Proof in Criminal Proceedings

Italian criminal proceedings are founded on cardinal principles such as the search for material truth and the autonomy of evidentiary evaluation. Article 238-bis c.p.p. stipulates that final and unappealable judgments rendered in criminal proceedings can be acquired and evaluated as evidence in ongoing criminal proceedings, attributing to them a specific "effectiveness for evidentiary purposes." But what happens when the evidentiary material is not a criminal judgment, but rather a civil judgment or an arbitral award, i.e., acts that, despite having a jurisdictional nature, arise from procedural systems with different rules and objectives?

This issue is of crucial importance, as touching the heart of the evidentiary system means influencing the outcome of a trial. The judgment in question, which involved E. S. A. and G. M., partially annulling without referral a decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan, ruled precisely on this delicate balance, clarifying that not all judicial decisions enjoy the same automatic evidentiary effectiveness in the criminal context.

The Cassation Court's Maxim: Boundaries and Freedom of Evaluation

The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 30119/2025, has crystallized a fundamental principle, reiterating the specificity of criminal proceedings compared to other jurisdictional areas. The maxim of the ruling states:

The effectiveness for evidentiary purposes provided for by art. 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies exclusively to criminal judgments, and therefore, not to civil judgments, nor to arbitral awards, which are acts of a jurisdictional nature and substitute for civil judgments, as the two procedural systems adopt asymmetric criteria in the evaluation of evidence, without prejudice to the fact that, once acquired, these decisions are also freely evaluable for the purposes of criminal judgment.

This statement is of significant scope. In practice, the Cassation Court confirms that Article 238-bis c.p.p. is a "special" rule, applicable only to criminal judgments. This means that a civil judgment or an arbitral award does not enter criminal proceedings with the same evidentiary "force" as a final and unappealable criminal judgment. The reason for this distinction lies, as highlighted by the Court itself, in the "asymmetric criteria in the evaluation of evidence" adopted by the two systems. In civil proceedings, for example, principles such as the parties' availability of evidence and the principle of disposition apply, whereas in criminal proceedings, the official search for evidence and the judge's obligation to ascertain the truth of the facts without preclusive constraints prevail, in compliance with the adversarial principle and the presumption of innocence.

However, the ruling clarifies an equally crucial aspect: the fact that these decisions do not fall within the scope of art. 238-bis c.p.p. does not render them unusable. On the contrary, once acquired into the trial record, they are "freely evaluable for the purposes of criminal judgment." This implies that:

• They do not enjoy a legal presumption of truthfulness or particular evidentiary effectiveness derived from their nature as a judgment or award.
• They must be considered as mere documents, acquirable pursuant to Article 234 c.p.p.
• The criminal judge is called upon to evaluate them critically, comparing them with all other evidence, without being bound by the conclusions reached in civil or arbitral proceedings.

This approach ensures the autonomy of criminal judgment and its ability to form its own conviction based on a complete and impartial investigation, avoiding the risk of "prejudices" arising from findings conducted with different rules and objectives.

Practical Implications and Regulatory References

The ruling of the Cassation Court No. 30119/2025 is part of a consolidated jurisprudential line (as also recalled by previous maxims No. 22827/2004, No. 41796/2016, No. 33972/2023, No. 15431/2018) aimed at preserving the integrity and autonomy of criminal proceedings. It reiterates the importance of Articles 187 and 192 c.p.p. on the freedom and evaluation of evidence, as well as Article 234 c.p.p. on the acquisition of documents. This orientation is consistent with the principles of a fair trial, ensuring that any determination of criminal responsibility occurs based on evidence formed or verified through adversarial proceedings in the criminal court.

For lawyers and legal professionals, this means that the use of civil judgments or arbitral awards in criminal proceedings requires a careful strategy. It is not enough to file them; it is necessary to argue their relevance, contextualize them, and, if necessary, support them with further evidence that confirms or explains their content, so that the criminal judge can evaluate them freely and correctly within the specific context of the alleged crime.

Conclusions: A Pillar for the Autonomy of Criminal Judgment

Ruling No. 30119/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental pillar for the autonomy of criminal judgment. It not only clarifies the limits of application of a specific rule like Article 238-bis c.p.p. but also strengthens the general principle that the criminal judge must form their free conviction based on evidence acquired and evaluated according to the rules of criminal proceedings. Civil judgments and arbitral awards, while valuable sources of information, cannot impose a binding judgment on the criminal judge; instead, they must be carefully weighed like any other document, contributing to an evidentiary framework that is as complete and objective as possible. This ruling protects the specificity of criminal law and its unavoidable guarantee function, ensuring that conviction or acquittal is always based on an autonomous and rigorous investigation.