Abuse of Office Abolition: First Revocations of Final Convictions

1. The fact

   With the entry into force of Law No. 114 of August 9, 2024, the crime of abuse of office was formally removed from the Italian Criminal Code. According to reports from SkyTG24 and Il Dubbio, this development triggered a wave of revocation requests for the over 3,600 final convictions recorded in the last twenty years. In July 2025, the revocation phase reached its peak after the Constitutional Court (judgment no. 95/2025, deposited on July 3, 2025) confirmed the legitimacy of the legislator's choice.

   Among the cases with the highest media resonance are those relating to Gianni Alemanno and Luca Palamara, both convicted not of abuse of office, but of trafficking of unlawful influence. In Alemanno's case, the Court of Cassation (judgment no. 5041/2025) rejected the request, finding legislative continuity with the new Art. 314-bis c.p. Conversely, for Palamara, the Tribunal of Perugia acting as enforcement judge (order of April 29, 2026) granted a partial revocation due to abolitio criminis in relation to Art. 346-bis c.p. To date, enforcement judges are proceeding with the systematic application of the statutory framework, decreeing the termination of criminal effects for thousands of individuals previously convicted.

2. 

   The norms at play

   The core of the matter lies in Art. 2, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code, which governs the so-called abolitio criminis: no one may be punished for an act that, under a subsequent law, no longer constitutes a crime. Art. 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the procedural instrument that enables the Enforcement Judge to revoke a final sentence when the incriminating provision is repealed. In parallel, the legislature introduced Art. 314-bis c.p. (undue destination of money or movable property), which specifically penalizes the diversion of public assets, acting as a partial successor to certain conduct previously sanctioned as abuse of office.

   Finally, Art. 185 c.p. becomes relevant with regard to civil obligations. Although the prison sentence and ancillary penalties are extinguished, debate remains open regarding the survival of damage claims by civil parties, provided the conduct retains the characteristics of a civil tort under Art. 2043 of the Civil Code.

3. What jurisprudence says

   Case law from the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court has clarified that the repeal of abuse of office represents a discretionary policy choice of the legislature, not subject to challenge on grounds of reasonableness or compliance with international obligations. Courts have established that revocation applies automatically to conduct that no longer finds correspondence in other criminal provisions. However, the Supreme Court specified that the so-called legislative continuity must be verified: if the conduct, despite no longer constituting abuse of office, can be subsumed under the new offense of undue destination or under other categories such as corruption, revocation must be denied.

   A consolidated line of authority also clarifies that the enforcement judge cannot reopen the merits of the case to ascertain full innocence, but must limit themselves to acknowledging the repeal of the legal precept, declaring that the act is no longer provided for by law as a crime.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Timeliness in enforcement proceedings: it is essential to monitor client positions to promptly initiate the revocation process under Art. 673 c.p.p.
   2. Continuity analysis: defense counsel must be prepared to counter ex officio reclassifications under Art. 314-bis c.p. or other provisions by demonstrating the absence of the constituent elements of the new offense.
   3. Protection in civil proceedings: close attention must be paid to civil enforcement, as the revocation of the criminal conviction does not automatically invalidate a civil damages judgment that has become final.

9. Update and rectification note (17 September 2026)

   In a previous version of this article, it was incorrectly stated that the Constitutional Court ruling was placed in September 2026 and that Gianni Alemanno and Luca Palamara had been convicted of abuse of office, undergoing the application of the same general rule on revocations. The text has been corrected based on official records: the Constitutional Court ruled with judgment no. 95/2025 on July 3, 2025; furthermore, both figures had been convicted of trafficking of unlawful influence, with different outcomes in the enforcement phase (rejection for Alemanno per Cass. pen. 5041/2025 due to continuity with Art. 314-bis c.p., and partial revocation for Palamara per Trib. Perugia enforcement judge 29.4.2026 due to the abolitio of Art. 346-bis c.p.).

References: Articolo 323 Codice PenaleArticolo 2 Codice PenaleArticolo 673 Codice di Procedura PenaleLegge 114/2024Articolo 314-bis Codice PenaleArticolo 346-bis Codice PenaleCorte cost. 95/2025Cass. pen. 5041/2025Trib. Perugia g.e. 29.4.2026

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction