The "more likely than not" criterion in the assessment of causality: commentary on Criminal Cassation no. 15209/2025

With judgment no. 15209 filed on April 17, 2025, the IV Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to focus on the delicate issue of the causal link when only the civil party appeals. While fitting into a long line of case law, the ruling introduces a renewed emphasis on the "more likely than not" criterion, destined to impact both the criminal and compensation aspects.

The procedural case

The proceedings arise from an accident that occurred to C. C. who, considering A. C. responsible, had constituted himself as a civil party for damages. In the first instance, the defendant was acquitted; the Court of Appeal of Naples, on appeal by the civil party alone, had instead recognized responsibility and ordered the defendant to pay damages. The latter then appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing, among other things, the erroneous application of the evidentiary criterion on the causal link.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation

In matters of establishing the causal link, the assessment of evidence, in the appeal proceedings initiated by the civil party alone, must be carried out based on the "more likely than not" criterion, rather than on the "high degree of logical probability" criterion.

The Court recalls that art. 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes the rule of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal convictions. However, if only the civil interest is at stake in the appeal, the judge no longer has to establish criminal responsibility, but rather compensation responsibility. Consequently, the civil law paradigm based on the balancing of probabilities applies: it is sufficient to demonstrate that, among several causal hypotheses, the one put forward by the civil party is the most plausible.

Origins and applications of the criterion

The expression "more likely than not" derives from the case law of the Court of Cassation in civil matters (Cass. Sez. Un. no. 30328/2002) and indicates an evidentiary threshold intermediate between the balance of probabilities and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, it translates into a judgment of prevalence: the causal reconstruction overcomes the threshold if it has a probability greater than 50%.

• Normative definition: there is no express codification; the implicit reference is art. 2697 of the Civil Code, calibrated however on the principle of proximity of proof.
• Criminal case law: Cass. no. 5901/2019, 27045/2016, and 43786/2010 had already admitted the application of the criterion in the civil phase of criminal proceedings.
• Practical implications: the burden of proof rests on the civil party, but it is lightened; the judge may draw on maxims of experience and logical inferences without demanding the almost absolute certainty required for criminal guilt.

Relationship with art. 41 of the Criminal Code and compensable damages

Art. 41 of the Criminal Code establishes the equivalence of simultaneous causes, except for the interruption of the link. The decision under review reiterates that the civil assessment does not separate these principles but interprets them in light of the compensatory function of damages. If the conduct of the defendant/obligor has contributed predominantly to the damage, compensation is due, without prejudice to the fact that the criminal acquittal remains unaffected.

Comparison with the "high degree of logical probability" rule

In ordinary criminal proceedings, the "high degree of logical probability" integrates the need for almost certain proof of etiology; this threshold protects the principle of presumption of innocence of European origin (art. 6 ECHR). Conversely, the new ruling delimits the scope in which this guarantee is not at play, allowing the judge to value:

• Simple presumptions and maxims of experience;
• Non-exhaustive but converging medical or technical documentation;
• Probabilistic assessments, provided they are reasoned.

Conclusions

Cass. no. 15209/2025 represents an important piece in the mosaic of the relationship between criminal proceedings and compensation for damages. By clarifying that, when the conviction concerns only the civil aspect, the causal assessment follows the "more likely than not" criterion, the Court protects, on the one hand, the guarantees of the defendant, and on the other, the effectiveness of the victim's rights. Legal professionals will have to take this into account from the phase of drafting appeals, modulating investigative and argumentative activity in light of a different evidentiary standard.