Non-appealability of convictions with only fines and the Cartabia reform: focus on judgment no. 13795/2024

The Court of Cassation returns to the highly debated issue of the limits to appealing convictions that impose only a fine. With ruling no. 13795/2024 (hearing of December 12, 2024, filed April 8, 2025), the Second Section annulled without referral the decision of the Court of Bologna, reaffirming the rule of non-appealability pursuant to art. 593, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Legislative Decree 150/2022 (the so-called Cartabia reform). Let's see why and what practical implications this has for criminal defence.

The regulatory framework: art. 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the reform

Art. 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure identifies the cases in which a first-instance judgment is not appealable. The Cartabia amendment affected paragraph 3, introducing the prohibition of appeal against convictions that substitute arrest with a fine only, in line with the new short-term substitute penalties (art. 20-bis of the Criminal Code and art. 53 et seq. of Law 689/1981).

• Art. 593, para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: provides for the non-appealability of convictions with pecuniary penalties.
• Legislative Decree 150/2022, art. 34: extends the prohibition also to pecuniary penalties that substitute arrest.
• Arts. 20-bis of the Criminal Code and 53 et seq. of Law 689/1981: introduce and regulate substitute penalties for short-term detention.

What judgment no. 13795/2024 states

The judges of legitimacy, presided over by M. B., rapporteur F. C., starting from the appeal filed by A. A., clarified that the ratio of the reform is to decongest the levels of judgment: when the legislator converts short-term detention into a mere pecuniary sanction, the review of legitimacy is considered sufficient, except for issues of constitutional legitimacy or appeal to the Court of Cassation.

In terms of appeals, a conviction with an imposed fine is not appealable, even if it is in whole or in part a substitute for arrest, as a result of the provisions of art. 593, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by art. 34, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree no. 150 of October 22, 2022, and the simultaneous introduction of substitute penalties for short-term detention penalties referred to in art. 20-bis of the Criminal Code and arts. 53 et seq. of Law no. 689 of November 24, 1981. Commentary: the maxim highlights two key passages. First, the prohibition of appeal applies not only to original fines but also to those that substitute arrest. Second, the reform aims to balance the efficiency of the system with the protection of rights, relying on the filter of legitimacy of the Court of Cassation. In other words, if the residual penalty is only pecuniary, the defendant's interest in a review of the merits is considered secondary to the need for procedural deflation.

Practical implications for defendants and lawyers

For the defence, the strategy changes significantly:

• It is necessary to evaluate ex ante the possibility that, in case of conviction, the fine will not be appealable; attention therefore shifts to the trial phase and to any issues of legitimacy to be raised before the Court of Cassation.
• Substitute penalties offer advantages in terms of speed and less punitive impact, but they limit the scope for appeals on the merits.
• However, an appeal to the Court of Cassation for violation of law or flawed reasoning remains admissible, as confirmed by the ruling itself.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 13795/2024 consolidates an already emerging trend (see Cass. 20573/2024) but not without conflicting precedents. Criminal defence lawyers must therefore remodel their defensive choices, making the most of the initial stages of the proceedings and carefully addressing the aspects of legitimacy. At the same time, the decision offers a signal of systemic coherence: if the sanction does not affect personal liberty, the legislator deems a single degree of merit to be sufficient. The debate about the compatibility of this limitation with art. 24 of the Constitution naturally remains open, a topic destined for further jurisprudential developments.