ORDER NO. 208
YEAR 2025
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
President: Giovanni AMOROSO;
Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following
ORDER
in the constitutional legitimacy judgment of Article 583-quinquies of the Penal Code, inserted by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Law of 19 July 2019, no. 69 (Amendments to the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other provisions concerning the protection of victims of domestic and gender violence), initiated by the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing of the Ordinary Court of Naples, in the criminal proceedings against A. P. and A. A. with an order dated 21 March 2025, registered under no. 77 of the ordinary orders register of 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 19, special series, of the year 2025.
Having seen the intervention brief of the President of the Council of Ministers;
having heard in the council chamber on 1 December 2025 the Reporting Judge Stefano Petitti;
deliberated in the council chamber on 1 December 2025.
Whereas, by order of 21 March 2025, registered under no. 77 of the ordinary orders register of 2025, the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing of the Ordinary Court of Naples raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 27, first and third paragraphs, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 583-quinquies of the Penal Code, inserted by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Law of 19 July 2019, no. 69 (Amendments to the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other provisions concerning the protection of victims of domestic and gender violence), "insofar as it does not provide for a reduction where, due to the particular insignificance of the harm or danger, the act results in minor gravity”;
whereas the referring judge states that they are called to judge, with the abbreviated procedure, two persons accused of the crime referred to in the challenged norm—namely, disfigurement of the person through permanent facial injuries—for having, in concert, caused grievous bodily harm to a third party, involving the partial detachment of an earlobe;
whereas, concerning the relevance of the questions, the *a quo* judge deduces that, in the event of a conviction, even applying reductions for generic mitigating circumstances and the choice of procedure, it would not be possible to impose a sentence lower than three years, six months, and twenty days of imprisonment, given the statutory minimum of eight years of imprisonment and the lack of provision for the reduction for an act of minor gravity, a term which, in their opinion, is disproportionate to the concrete gravity of the act;
whereas, concerning the non-manifest groundlessness, the referring judge deems the rigidity of the sanctioning treatment established by the challenged norm to be inconsistent with the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and the rehabilitative purpose of the penalty, as it does not allow the judge to mitigate the sentence concerning "injurious conduct which, although affecting the face, is to be considered of lesser gravity” because it— "based on objective and verifiable parameters, such as, for example, the localization in peripheral areas of the face itself, or the reduced dimensions of the resulting mark”—does not cause—as in the present case— "a sensible alteration of the somatic features of the person and, therefore, a significant and distinctly perceptible injury or endangerment to the individual’s identity”;
whereas the referring judge therefore requests an additive judgment, introducing the mitigating circumstance of the particular insignificance of the act for the crime under Article 583-quinquies of the Penal Code, in line with precedents of this Court (Sentences No. 86 of 2024 and No. 120 of 2023 are mentioned);
whereas the President of the Council of Ministers, intervening in the proceedings through the State Attorney General’s Office, requested that the questions be declared inadmissible or unfounded;
whereas, according to the State defense, inadmissibility would result from a defect of relevance, as the referring judge themselves presented the facial injury, the subject of the main judgment, as incapable of constituting a permanent disfigurement attributable to the provision of the challenged norm;
whereas the questions would, in any case, be unfounded, as the, albeit severe, statutory minimum of the norm itself finds reasonable justification in the "particular gravity of conduct that harms not only physical integrity but the very individuality and dignity of the victim, affecting their image, which constitutes the essential vehicle in interpersonal relationships”;
Considering that, with the order indicated in the heading, the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing of the Court of Naples raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 27, first and third paragraphs, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 583-quinquies of the Penal Code, inserted by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Law no. 69 of 2019, "insofar as it does not provide for a reduction where, due to the particular insignificance of the harm or danger, the act results in minor gravity”;
whereas, in the opinion of the referring judge, this omission violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and the rehabilitative purpose of the penalty, as it does not allow the judge to moderate the penalty in relation to the concrete gravity of the act, even in the face of the high statutory minimum of eight years of imprisonment;
whereas, subsequent to the referral order, this Court, with Sentence No. 83 of 2025, declared the unconstitutionality of Article 583-quinquies, first paragraph, of the Penal Code, "insofar as it does not provide that the penalty assigned by it is reduced by an amount not exceeding one-third when, due to the nature, type, means, methods, or circumstances of the action, or due to the particular insignificance of the harm or danger, the act results in minor gravity”;
whereas that sentence recognized a violation of the constitutional principles of proportionality, personalization, and the rehabilitative purpose of the penalty, as the challenged norm, due to the absence of the "safety valve” of the mitigating circumstance for an act of minor gravity, "in the presence of a statutory minimum of exceptional harshness and a multifaceted range of punishable conduct, creates the risk of imposing a sentence that is excessive in concrete terms, therefore insensitive to the judgment of the offender’s personality and unsuitable for the purpose of their rehabilitation”;
whereas the supervening declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged norm, in accepting a question overlapping with the one under review, renders the latter devoid of object and consequently determines its manifest inadmissibility (among others, specifically in criminal matters, Orders No. 35 of 2025, No. 186 of 2024, and No. 86 of 2023);
whereas this ground for inadmissibility, due to its manifest and radical nature, absorbs the objection of lack of relevance of the questions, raised by the State Attorney General’s Office.
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the manifest inadmissibility of the questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 583-quinquies of the Penal Code, inserted by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Law of 19 July 2019, no. 69 (Amendments to the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other provisions concerning the protection of victims of domestic and gender violence), raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 27, first and third paragraphs, of the Constitution, by the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing of the Ordinary Court of Naples, with the order indicated in the heading.
So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 1 December 2025.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Stefano PETITTI, Reporting Judge
Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor
Filed in the Registry on 29 December 2025
The anonymized version conforms, in text, to the original