Italian Jurisdiction and Maintenance Obligations Abroad: The Supreme Court in Ruling No. 31757 of 2025

Family law matters with transnational implications, especially those concerning support and maintenance obligations, are complex. The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Ruling No. 31757 of 2025, has provided crucial clarifications on the limits of Italian criminal jurisdiction in such contexts, becoming an indispensable reference for those operating in the field.

The Regulatory Framework: Articles 570 and 6 of the Criminal Code

The violation of family support obligations, sanctioned by Article 570 of the Criminal Code, protects vulnerable family members. However, when the entitled party to the provision resides permanently abroad, the question of Italian jurisdiction arises. Article 6 of the Criminal Code establishes the principle of territoriality: a crime is committed in Italy if the action, omission, or event occurs, even partially, within the territory. Identifying the place of commission for an international failure to provide maintenance is complex.

Clarity from the Supreme Court's Ruling

Ruling No. 31757 of 2025, issued by the Sixth Criminal Section (President Dr. F. G., Rapporteur Dr. I. M.), rejected the appeal in the case of the defendant S. P.M. L. N., establishing a clear principle regarding lack of jurisdiction.

In matters of violation of family support obligations, there is a lack of jurisdiction of the Italian judge if the entitled party to the provision resides permanently abroad and no conduct, aimed at evading or creating obstacles to fulfillment, committed within national territory and capable of integrating the connecting factor referred to in Article 6 of the Criminal Code, exists.

In summary, the Court establishes the lack of Italian jurisdiction if the beneficiary resides permanently abroad and the obligated party has not taken active steps on Italian soil to evade or obstruct payment. The mere failure to send money, without specific conduct in Italy (e.g., hiding assets or falsifying documents), does not establish Italian criminal jurisdiction. An effective "connecting factor" is essential: active conduct by the defendant in Italy that constitutes the crime within our state.

Conditions for Lack of Jurisdiction: Operational Details

The ruling clarifies that simple non-fulfillment, when the beneficiary is abroad, is not sufficient for Italian criminal jurisdiction. It is essential that the obligated party has undertaken specific and active conduct within the national territory, such as:

• Evasive or fraudulent maneuvers carried out in Italy to evade the obligation.
• Concealment of economic resources or creation of bureaucratic/legal impediments through acts performed on Italian soil.

Without such "connecting" conduct, the crime does not fall within the competence of the Italian judge. This interpretation aligns with previous case law (e.g., Ruling No. 8613 of 2020), distinguishing pure omission from an active act that prevents fulfillment. Only the latter, if committed in Italy, can establish jurisdiction.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Ruling No. 31757 of 2025 sheds light on transnational maintenance issues. It clarifies that the mere Italian residence of the obligated party is not sufficient for criminal jurisdiction, requiring active conduct within national territory aimed at evading or obstructing fulfillment. This principle protects the right to defense and the correct application of territoriality. For victims, in the absence of such conduct in Italy, it will be necessary to turn to foreign authorities or activate international cooperation mechanisms (e.g., Regulation EC No. 4/2009). Specialized legal advice is crucial for navigating private international and criminal law and protecting one's rights.