27 Jun reform in cassation of the appeal sentence

The reform of the appeal sentence by the Court of Cassation constitutes one of the moments of greatest systematic importance in the Italian criminal process, since it is located at the intersection of the principle of the double degree of jurisdiction, the nomophylactic function of the Supreme Court and the constitutional guarantees of due process enshrined in art. 111 Cost. The Court of Cassation, indeed, it does not represent a third degree of merit, but rather a judge of legitimacy who is entrusted with monitoring the correct application of the substantive and procedural criminal law, as well as on the rationality and completeness of the reasons for the contested decision. It follows that the reform of the appeal sentence cannot translate into a new evaluation of the evidentiary material, except for the limits within which the motivational flaw translates into manifest illogicality, contradictoriness or lack of motivation, or an error of law emerges capable of affecting the validity of the decision. L’art. 606 c.p.p. strictly identifies the grounds for appeal, confirming the strictly constrained nature of the legitimacy review, while the articles. 620, 622 e 623 c.p.p. govern the effects of cancellation, distinguishing between annulment without postponement and annulment with postponement. In the first case, the Court directly defines the procedure when no further findings of fact are necessary, as in the case of extinction of the crime, lack of a condition of admissibility or manifest non-existence of the disputed fact; in the second, instead, the case is referred to the territorially competent judge to proceed with a new examination in compliance with the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court. The distinction reflects the traditional balance between the dispositive principle of appeals and respect for the functional separation between the judge of fact and the judge of legitimacy. The jurisprudence of the United Sections has progressively clarified that the Supreme Court's control over the motivation cannot result in a re-evaluation of the evidence, but it must be limited to verifying the logical coherence and legal correctness of the argumentative process followed by the judge of merit, except in cases of misrepresentation of the evidence, figure developed by jurisprudence as a specific hypothesis of motivational defect when the evidentiary content is radically altered or completely ignored. The relationship between the Court of Cassation and the referring judge also takes on particular importance: the latter is bound to the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, but retains full autonomy in the reconstruction of the facts and in the evaluation of the evidence, provided that such activity is carried out in compliance with the limits deriving from the termination decision. The doctrine has underlined how this constraint creates a delicate balance between the needs of uniformity of interpretation and the autonomy of the judge of merit, avoiding that the referral judgment turns into a mere automatic execution of the legitimacy decision. A further profile of interest concerns the reform of acquittal sentences on appeal, matter profoundly influenced by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and transposed by national jurisprudence through the principle according to which the conviction at second instance, after an acquittal pronounced at first instance based on the evaluation of the declaratory evidence, normally requires the renewal of the preliminary hearing, in order to guarantee the principle of immediacy and the right of the accused to a fair trial. The United Sections have progressively consolidated this orientation, recognizing that the overturning of the acquittal decision cannot be based exclusively on a different paper reading of the witness statements. Also the legislative reforms of recent years, culminated in the legislative decree. n. 150 of the 2022 (c.d. Riforma Cartabia), have had a profound impact on the appeals system, pursuing the objectives of greater procedural efficiency, reduction of trial times and rationalization of access to the Court of Cassation, without altering its essential function of guaranteeing legality. In this perspective, the Supreme Court continues to represent the guardian of the uniform interpretation of the law, ensuring that the reform of appeal sentences occurs in strict compliance with the constitutional principles of legality, motivation, contradictory and reasonable duration of the process, confirming the central role of the judgment of legitimacy as a tool for balancing legal certainty, protection of fundamental rights and correct exercise of jurisdiction.