Compulsory Education Evasion: The Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 30777/2025) and Abolitio Criminis Between Old and New Criminal Law

The right to education is a fundamental pillar of our Constitution, and its guarantee also passes through compulsory education, the non-observance of which has always had criminal implications. However, the regulatory landscape is constantly evolving, and a recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Judgment no. 30777 of 08/07/2025 (filed on 15/09/2025), marks a crucial turning point, introducing the concept of "abolitio criminis" for certain past conduct. This decision definitively clarifies the relationship between the old misdemeanor and the new felony regarding the non-observance of the obligation to educate minors, with significant practical repercussions.

The Regulatory Framework: From Article 731 to the New Article 570-ter of the Criminal Code

To fully understand the scope of the Supreme Court's judgment, it is essential to retrace the legislative changes that have affected this matter. Until recently, the non-observance of the obligation for elementary education of minors was sanctioned as a misdemeanor under Article 731 of the Criminal Code. This provision penalized anyone responsible for a minor's education who failed to provide compulsory education, without a specific request or warning from the authorities.

However, Article 12 of Decree-Law no. 123 of August 10, 2023, converted with amendments by Law no. 159 of October 6, 2023, has profoundly innovated the discipline. It not only repealed Article 731 of the Criminal Code but also simultaneously introduced the new felony under Article 570-ter of the Criminal Code, titled "Non-observance of the obligation to educate minors." This new provision no longer limits itself to "elementary" education but extends the obligation to the entire "compulsory schooling period," and, crucially, subordinates the criminal relevance of passive conduct to the failure to comply with a "double warning" provided for by Article 114, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree no. 297 of April 16, 1994, also amended by the same legislation.

The "Holding" of the Court of Cassation and Abolitio Criminis

The Court of Cassation, in judgment no. 30777/2025, examined precisely the relationship between these two disciplines, ruling on the issue of "normative continuity." The case concerned the defendant M. P.M., whose appeal was upheld, leading to the annulment without referral of the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Termini Imerese. The holding of the judgment states:

In matters of non-observance of the obligation to educate minors, there is no normative continuity between the repealed misdemeanor under Article 731 of the Criminal Code and the felony provided for by Article 570-ter of the Criminal Code, simultaneously introduced by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law of August 10, 2023, no. 123, converted, with amendments, by Law of October 6, 2023, no. 159, because, under the new criminal provision, the passive conduct by the person responsible for the minor's education, no longer limited to "elementary" education but encompassing the entire "compulsory schooling period," assumes criminal relevance only if the double warning provided for by Article 114, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree of April 16, 1994, no. 297, as amended by the same Article 12, proves to be unsuccessful, resulting in "abolitio criminis" for conduct prior to the amendment consisting of not preventing unjustified absence for a period sufficient to constitute evasion of the elementary compulsory education obligation.

This passage is of crucial importance. The Court of Cassation clearly states that there is no normative continuity between the two offenses. But what exactly does "abolitio criminis" mean? According to the principle of favor rei, also enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code and Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, no one can be punished for an act that, according to a subsequent law, does not constitute a crime. In our case, the Court of Cassation held that the new provision (Article 570-ter of the Criminal Code) has substantially modified the punishable conduct, introducing a new and indispensable constitutive element: the double warning. If this warning has not been given and ignored, the conduct no longer constitutes a crime, with the consequence that for acts committed before the entry into force of Decree-Law no. 123/2023, relating to elementary compulsory education, "abolitio criminis" occurs.

• Scope of the Obligation: From "elementary education" to the "entire compulsory schooling period."
• Condition for Punishability: The introduction of the "double warning" as an essential prerequisite.
• Consequence: "Abolitio criminis" for conduct prior to the legislative amendment that does not meet the new requirements.

Practical Implications of Judgment no. 30777/2025

The repercussions of this ruling are significant. For all criminal proceedings still pending, relating to conduct of non-observance of the obligation to educate minors that occurred before the entry into force of Decree-Law no. 123/2023 and which did not include the prerequisite of the double warning, judges must declare the extinction of the crime due to "abolitio criminis." This means that, although the conduct was unlawful at the time it was committed, the subsequent legislative amendment has rendered it no longer punishable. This principle applies not only to ongoing trials but also to convictions that have already become final, for which a revocation can be requested under Article 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of a more protective and dialogical approach in managing compulsory education. Before resorting to criminal sanctions, the State, through educational institutions and competent authorities, must initiate a process of reminder and support, highlighted by the double warning. Only persistent inaction in the face of such solicitations now constitutes the felony.

Conclusions: A Significant Change of Course

Judgment no. 30777 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification in criminal law and compulsory education. It not only reaffirms the cardinal principles of criminal law, such as the non-retroactivity of a more unfavorable criminal law and favor rei, but also introduces greater complexity and gradualness in addressing situations of school evasion. For parents and those responsible for education, this means greater awareness of the procedures that precede any potential criminal sanction, emphasizing prevention and dialogue with institutions. For legal professionals, the ruling offers a valuable interpretative tool for managing pending and future cases, ensuring the correct application of the principles of legality and guarantee.