Inability to Appear in Enforcement Proceedings: Cassation No. 16084/2025 Sets Criteria for Evaluating Medical Certificates

Can a simple medical certificate prevent the holding of a criminal enforcement hearing? The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 16084 of February 13, 2025 (filed April 28, 2025), returns to the issue, offering a clear answer. The case concerned A. L., who had submitted a certificate of "acute gastroenteritis" to justify his absence before the Court of S. M. Capua Vetere. The enforcement judge proceeded nonetheless; the defense appealed, alleging a violation of the right to defense under art. 666 c.p.p. The Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible and reiterated a practical rule of great importance for lawyers and defendants.

The Core of the Decision

The Court bases its reasoning on articles 666 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), as well as constitutional case law on due process. The absence of the interested party in an enforcement hearing is relevant only if:

• the interested party has expressed the will to be heard personally;
• the impediment is presented in a specific and documented manner, i.e., such as to allow the judge to verify the actual impossibility of participating;
• the request and documentation are filed promptly, so as not to prejudice procedural economy.

In the specific case, the certificate lacked indications on the severity of the illness and its actual impact on the ability to attend, so the judge could legitimately proceed.

In matters of enforcement proceedings, the impediment to the interested party's appearance is relevant if the interested party has requested to be heard personally, provided that it is presented in a manner that can be appreciated and evaluated by the presiding judge. (Case in which the Court deemed irrelevant a medical certificate attesting, generically, to gastroenteritis, without further indications on the consequences of the illness regarding the impossibility of participating in the proceedings).

The maxim, seemingly simple, expresses two crucial concepts. First: the impediment is not in re ipsa, but must be made "evaluable" by the judge, otherwise the right to be present yields to the need for speed. Second: the medical documentation must be detailed (diagnosis, prognosis, duration, possible need for absolute rest), otherwise it does not pass the seriousness test required by art. 666, paragraph 3 of the c.p.p.

Comparison with Previous Case Law

The ruling is in line with decisions such as Cass. no. 2865/2013 and no. 26762/2020, which have excluded the automatic suspension for health reasons, and together with the more recent no. 437/2024, focused on the burden of specific allegations. It is also consistent with the constitutional direction which, while valuing the right to defense, requires it to be balanced with the principle of reasonable duration of the proceedings (Constitutional Court no. 45/2003 and no. 197/2014).

Practical Implications for Defense Counsel and Defendants

In light of the reaffirmed principles, anyone wishing to request an adjournment of an enforcement hearing for health reasons must:

• submit the request personally or through their defense counsel, declaring the will to be heard;
• attach a detailed certificate, possibly accompanied by examinations or precise clinical indications;
• specify the foreseeable duration of the illness and the possible impossibility of participating via videoconference;
• propose, if applicable, remote participation under art. 45-bis of the Penitentiary Law (O.P.), demonstrating cooperation with the judicial authority.

Only in this way can the risk of a hearing held in absentia be avoided, with potentially irreparable consequences at the enforcement level (e.g., rejection of enforcement incidents or revocation of benefits).

Conclusions

Judgment no. 16084/2025 confirms a consolidated trend: the burden of proving the impediment to appear in a concrete and verifiable manner rests with the interested party. In the absence of substantiated elements, the enforcement judge can – and must – proceed, under penalty of procedural paralysis. For professionals, this requires greater care in preparing documentation and in the timeliness of requests; for defendants, it represents an invitation not to abuse generic certifications. The balance between the effectiveness of the right to defense and the reasonable duration of the proceedings passes, once again, through the quality of the defense acts.