Court of Cassation 16082/2025: Failure to Prescribe Does Not Halt Proceedings for Food-Related Offences

The criminal justice system concerning food has for years been moving towards models of restorative justice and dispute resolution. Articles 12-ter et seq. of Law 283/1962, rewritten by the Cartabia reform (Legislative Decree 150/2022), introduce an extinction procedure based on regularization prescriptions issued by control bodies. But what happens if these prescriptions are never notified to the suspect? Judgment no. 16082 of 2025 by the Third Criminal Section provides a clear answer that deserves further examination.

The Regulatory Framework: From Law 283 to Legislative Decree 150/2022

Law 283/1962 governs offences related to the production and trade of food. The 2022 amendments have supplemented the traditional sanctioning system with an extinction procedure modelled on that provided for in Article 318-bis of the Criminal Code and Article 162-bis of the Criminal Code. In summary:

• the investigating body, at the same time as issuing the report, specifies the prescriptions to eliminate the irregularity;
• the suspect has 60 days to comply and pay a reduced penalty;
• if successful, the offence is extinguished.

Article 12-sexies then provides a 'fallback' mechanism: if the Public Prosecutor's Office receives notice of an offence without prescriptions, it may return the case file, inviting the supervisory body to take action. The case decided by the Court of Cassation arose precisely from the inaction of the investigating body.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and its Meaning

In the context of criminal legislation on food, the omission by the investigating body to inform the suspect of the regularization prescriptions, compliance with which is necessary for the special extinction procedure referred to in Articles 12-ter et seq. of Law of 30 April 1962, no. 283, introduced by Article 70, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree of 10 October 2022, no. 150, does not constitute grounds for the inadmissibility of criminal proceedings concerning the contraventions provided for by the aforementioned law, punishable by a fine, even if alternative. (In its reasoning, the Court added that the mechanism provided for by Article 12-sexies of Law no. 283 of 1962, presupposing that the Public Prosecutor's Office has not received notice of the offence from the investigating body, does not oblige the adoption of prescriptions, and therefore, upon expiry of the sixty-day period from the submission of the case file, the magistrate may proceed without having to review or inquire about the inaction of the investigating body).

Comment: the Court excludes that the inaction of the supervisory body can translate into a "protection gap" in favour of the defendant. The preferential procedure is merely a possibility, not a necessary step for the validity of criminal proceedings. Consequently, the trial continues, and any administrative regularization may be taken into account, if at all, at the sentencing stage or for mitigating circumstances.

Operational Implications for Businesses and Defence Counsel

The ruling, while consistent with previous judgments (Cass. 3671/2018, 36405/2019), reiterates some key points:

• inadmissibility is an exceptional remedy and must be expressly provided for; in food-related offences, the law does not provide for it in cases of failure to initiate the extinction procedure;
• the defendant wishing to access the benefit must take independent action, requesting that prescriptions be issued pursuant to Article 96 of Legislative Decree 150/2022;
• Public Prosecutors are not required to verify the inaction of inspectors and may initiate criminal proceedings upon the expiry of the 60-day period;
• the defence may, at most, invoke spontaneous compliance as proof of the low harmfulness of the act, for the purposes of Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code or for alternative penalties.

Conclusions

With judgment 16082/2025, the Court of Cassation reinforces the principle of procedural legality: if the legislator does not subordinate criminal action to a prior attempt at regularization, judges cannot introduce forfeiture provisions in favour of the defendant. The hope is that control bodies will nevertheless ensure the effectiveness of the extinction procedure, thereby promoting food safety through the timely adaptation of operators, while simultaneously reducing the judicial burden. In the meantime, businesses and defence counsel are warned: the absence of prescriptions is not a procedural shield, but rather a management issue to be addressed immediately to contain criminal and economic risks.