Special Mandate and Technical Defence: What Changes After Ruling No. 12613/2025

With ruling No. 12613, filed on April 1, 2025, the Court of Cassation (Section V, Pres. M. V., Rapporteur E. V. S.) returns to address the special mandate under Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a central institute in the Cartabia reform for appealing criminal judgments. The case involved the defendant Y. G. and concerned the validity of an appeal filed by one of his two trusted lawyers. The crux of the matter: was the appointment of the first lawyer implicitly revoked? The Supreme Court answered in the negative, annulling the decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples and remanding the case.

Regulatory Context

Article 581 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the version preceding Law No. 114 of August 9, 2024, stipulated that the appeal document must be "signed under penalty of inadmissibility" by a lawyer with a special mandate. The 2024 reform revised its prerequisites, but the case in question fell under the previous text. For some time, legal scholars and jurisprudence have been questioning how to reconcile:

• the principle of the defendant's freedom in choosing (or plurality of) lawyers under Article 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
• the power to revoke the appointment, which Article 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subordinates to an explicit manifestation of will;
• the need for certainty regarding the authors of appeals, as emphasized by Legislative Decree 150/2022.

Before this ruling, some lower courts held that granting a special mandate to only one professional automatically, ipso iure, terminated the previous mandate to the other lawyer. Cassation 12613/2025 refutes this interpretation.

The Principle Affirmed

In matters of appeals, the special mandate provided for by Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the text prior to the entry into force of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter o), of Law No. 114 of August 9, 2024, granted to only one of the two previous trusted lawyers, cannot be interpreted as an implicit revocation of the other previously appointed trusted lawyer.

The principle, seemingly simple, reiterates that the revocation of a lawyer is **express**: it requires an unequivocal declaration by the defendant or the new lawyer, filed with the court registry. The judicial body cannot presume revocation solely from the fact that the special mandate was issued to one of the already appointed lawyers.

Practical Implications for Defence

The jurisprudential decision has an impact on multiple fronts:

• Validity of Appeals: A document signed by a lawyer still "in office" remains valid, avoiding declarations of inadmissibility under Article 591 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Procedural Strategy: The defendant can maintain a multiple defence, useful in the appeal and Cassation stages, without having to formally renew the double appointment.
• Disciplinary Liability: Any conflicts between lawyers must be resolved in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers; the ruling clarifies that there is no illegitimate overlap until an express revocation.

The Court cites, in support, consistent precedents (Cass. 20318/2024; 3365/2024) and the opinion of the United Sections 12164/2012, according to which implicit revocation is admissible only in the presence of unambiguous elements, which were absent in this case.

Relationship with the 2024 Reform

It is true that Law 114/2024 affected Article 581 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Court highlights that the amendment did not introduce a tacit revocation. Indeed, the new paragraph 1-quater, by requiring the "specific indication" of the lawyer with the special mandate, does not nullify the fiduciary relationship with any co-defendants. Consequently, the principle remains relevant even post-reform.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 12613/2025 consolidates the protection of the right to defence, preventing interpretative formalisms from restricting the defendant's freedom of choice as provided by the Constitution (Art. 24) and the ECHR (Art. 6). However, legal professionals must pay attention to two precautions: formalizing any revocation in writing and clearly specifying, in the appeal document, to whom the special mandate has been granted. Only in this way will it be possible to avert disputes over the validity of the appeal and ensure the full implementation of defence strategies.