Judgment no. 11928/2025: Ideological falsehood and certification of institutional use of service vehicles

The ruling under comment (judgment no. 11928 of 26/02/2025, filed on 25/03/2025, Section 5) addresses the configurability of the crime of ideological falsehood in a public act when a public official certifies the institutional use of a service vehicle for private purposes. The Court's decision offers key points for the disciplinary and criminal liability of public operators.

The case and the scope of the decision

In the case examined, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that the conduct described in the service order and exit order of a vehicle belonging to the judicial police section can constitute the crime of ideological falsehood provided for by art. 479 of the Italian Criminal Code when the use of the vehicle for institutional purposes is falsely certified instead of private ones. The judgment, with President M. G. R. A. and rapporteur A. F., refers to a series of past rulings that trace a consolidated interpretative line (see maxims cited in the provision: N. 14486/2011, N. 38455/2019, N. 9368/2014, etc.).

The maxim of the judgment

The conduct of a public official who, in the service order and exit order of a car used by the judicial police section, falsely certifies the use of the vehicle for institutional purposes instead of private ones constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood in a public act.

This maxim summarises the core of the legal reasoning: it is not merely a material error or a formal inaccuracy, but a mendacious certification that alters the documentary truth regarding facts capable of producing legal effects. The reference to the service order and the exit order highlights how administrative documents, even if simple in form, acquire criminal relevance when they are intended to represent the reality of facts.

Why the ruling is relevant: practical and legal aspects

The implications are manifold for those operating in the public sector:

• Clarity on the requirements of ideological falsehood: the intent to certify falsehood regarding a fact capable of appearing true in a public act is required.
• Distinction between error and wilful intent: the Court distinguishes excusable error from the intent to misrepresent reality, the latter being punishable by law.
• Risk of disciplinary and criminal liability: the same conduct can lead to different consequences in administrative and criminal proceedings.

In normative terms, the judgment refers to art. 479 of the Italian Criminal Code (ideological falsehood in a public act) and follows the case law cited in the provision, consolidating the orientation according to which the falsehood concerns not only merely descriptive data, but the distortion of reality when it affects relevant legal situations.

Jurisprudential and interpretative references

The reference in the grounds to previous decisions (e.g., N. 14486/2011 Rv. 249858-01; N. 38455/2019 Rv. 277092-01; N. 9368/2014 Rv. 258952-01) indicates how the Court of Cassation has constantly monitored the boundaries of the crime: mere inaccuracy is not enough, conscious certification of facts contrary to the truth is required. The ruling is consistent with the principle of protecting the certainty and reliability of public acts, a fundamental principle also at the European level in balancing administrative efficiency and the rights of third parties involved.

How to guide the operational practice of offices

To reduce the risk of criminal challenges, offices and public officials should adopt simple precautions:

• accurately record the purposes and methods of use of the means;
• verify the correspondence between the service order and technical documentation;
• introduce internal control procedures and training on the evidentiary value of acts.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 11928/2025 confirms that the certification of the institutional use of a vehicle, if false and made knowingly by a public official, constitutes the crime of ideological falsehood under art. 479 of the Italian Criminal Code. The decision reinforces the importance of the veracity of public acts and calls for preventive measures in administrations. For professionals assisting public officials or public administrations, it is essential to take this orientation into account in document management and in defence in criminal and disciplinary proceedings.