Court of Cassation: Lack of Reasoning is a Legal Defect (Judgment No. 11721/2025)

In the Italian legal landscape, the reasoning of judgments represents a fundamental pillar of due process, ensuring transparency and oversight of judicial activity. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 11721 of March 25, 2025, has reiterated and clarified a principle of enormous relevance for all legal professionals and citizens: the absolute lack of reasoning or merely apparent reasoning equates to a genuine violation of law, with direct consequences on the validity of judicial decisions. This ruling, which quashes with referral the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro of July 3, 2024, offers crucial insights for understanding the limits and guarantees of our criminal procedural system.

The Duty to Provide Reasoning: A Constitutional Principle

The obligation to provide reasoning for judgments is not a mere formality but a principle enshrined at the highest level of our hierarchy of sources: Article 111, paragraph six, of the Italian Constitution. This fundamental norm states that "all judicial measures must be reasoned." Reasoning, in fact, allows for the reconstruction of the logical-legal path that led the judge to a specific decision, enabling the parties to understand the reasons, exercise their right to defense, and ultimately appeal the judgment with full knowledge. Without adequate reasoning, a judicial measure would risk appearing as an arbitrary act, lacking the rational foundation that legitimizes its authority.

Judgment 11721/2025: Clarity on Violation of Law

The judgment in question, issued by the First Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation with President G. D. M. and Rapporteur C. R., concerns the appeal filed against the judgment involving the defendant S. P. The Court addressed the issue of the deductibility, through a cassation appeal, of reasoning defects. The maxim of the judgment is clear and unequivocal:

In the context of a cassation appeal, the absolute lack of reasoning and merely apparent reasoning constitute the defect of violation of law deductible pursuant to art. 606, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it involves the non-observance of art. 125, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, in compliance with art. 111, paragraph six, of the Constitution, provides that judgments and orders must be reasoned under penalty of nullity.

This passage is of crucial importance. The Court of Cassation does not merely reiterate the obligation to provide reasoning but qualifies its absence or mere appearance as a violation of law. This means that such deficiencies do not fall under the more general category of "reasoning defect" (art. 606, paragraph 1, letter e), of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but directly under letter c) of the same article, which concerns the non-observance or erroneous application of criminal law or other legal norms. Specifically, the violation is identified in art. 125, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which expressly requires judgments and orders to be reasoned, under penalty of nullity.

Absent Reasoning vs. Apparent Reasoning: Subtle Distinctions

To fully understand the scope of the judgment, it is useful to distinguish between "absolute lack of reasoning" and "merely apparent reasoning."

• The absolute lack of reasoning occurs when the judge completely omits to state the reasons for their decision, leaving the measure devoid of any logical and legal justification.
• Merely apparent reasoning, on the other hand, occurs when the reasoning formally exists but is so generic, obscure, contradictory, or illogical that it does not allow for the reconstruction of the judge's actual argumentative path. It is a "facade" reasoning that does not fulfill its essential function of explaining the reason for the decision.

In both cases, the Court of Cassation equates the deficiency to a violation of law, opening the way for an appeal pursuant to art. 606, paragraph 1, letter c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with all the consequent possibilities of annulling the measure. This interpretation strengthens the protection of the right to defense and the principle of due process, ensuring that every judicial decision is supported by a solid and verifiable argumentative framework.

Conclusions: The Guarantee of Due Process

Judgment No. 11721 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation fits into a consolidated line of case law but reinforces it with further clarity, reiterating the capital importance of reasoning in the criminal procedural system. It is not just a formal fulfillment but the beating heart of the legitimacy and justice of a decision. For parties involved in a trial, knowing that a judgment lacking effective reasoning can be annulled for violation of law represents a fundamental guarantee. For lawyers, this ruling underscores the importance of carefully scrutinizing the reasoning of judicial measures, being ready to identify not only contradictions or illogicalities but also deficiencies that border on absence or appearance, thus constituting a much more serious and easily appealable defect. A transparent and responsible judicial system necessarily involves judgments that, first and foremost, know how to explain their reasons clearly and unequivocally.