Cassation Court Ruling no. 14510/2025: The Deadline for Rescission of Judgment after the Amendment of Art. 629-bis c.p.p.

With decision no. 14510, filed on April 14, 2025, the Third Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation (Pres. G. V., Rapporteur-Rapporteur M. B.) returns to address a matter of great practical interest: the commencement of the thirty-day period for filing a request for rescission of judgment pursuant to art. 629-bis c.p.p., as amended by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150 (the so-called "Cartabia reform"). The case concerned A. E. C., convicted in absentia and the recipient of an execution order consolidating multiple sentences; the request for rescission was declared untimely by both the Court of Appeal of Florence and, now, by the Court of Cassation.

The New Art. 629-bis c.p.p. and the Cartabia Reform

Before 2022, the provision referred to "proceedings"; today it refers to "judgment," but the Court clarifies that the legislator did not intend to change the temporal structure of the deadline, but rather to strengthen the centrality of the concluding measure. Rescission continues to represent an exceptional remedy aimed at overturning a judgment that was formed in the absence of the defendant, as a guarantee of the right to defense enshrined in art. 6 ECHR.

The Ruling's Headnote

In matters of rescission of judgment, the thirty-day period for submitting the request commences from the moment the convicted person becomes aware, not of the content of the judgment or the procedural acts on which it is based, but of the particulars of the measure that concluded the proceedings, of the judicial authority that issued it, and of the sentence imposed, even following the amendment of art. 629-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by substituting the phrase "judgment" for "proceedings" previously used, as provided by art. 37, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150. (Case in which the Court deemed the decision to be free from censure, which had commenced the period for filing the request from the notification of the execution order for the consolidation of sentences, including the judgment subject to the rescission request).

The Court, therefore, reiterates a principle already affirmed (Sez. U, 36848/2014) and adapts it to the new legislative wording: what matters is the legal knowledge of the particulars of the measure, not the exact understanding of its reasoning. In practical terms, the starting point (dies a quo) normally coincides with the notification of the execution order or other communication suitable for informing the convicted person that a final sentence exists against them.

Comparison with Previous Case Law

• Sez. 3, 33109/2024: confirmed the commencement from the moment the defendant "could have" known of the measure.
• Sez. 3, 36560/2021: deadline linked to the notification of the European arrest warrant.
• Sez. U, 11447/2025: continuity with the criterion of "legal knowledge" even in matters of default judgments.

The new ruling therefore falls within a consolidated interpretative line, reinforcing the need for certainty in procedural relationships and the speed of appeal mechanisms.

Practical Implications for Defense Counsel and Defendants

To avoid declarations of inadmissibility, defense counsel must:

• promptly verify any notifications of execution orders or other equivalent acts;
• rigorously calculate the thirty days, taking into account the suspension of deadlines during the holiday period (art. 172 c.p.p.);
• document any force majeure that prevented knowledge of the conviction's particulars.

It is worth remembering that rescission of judgment remains precluded when the defendant has voluntarily evaded proceedings (art. 629-bis, para. 3), a point that the Court did not fail to emphasize.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 14510/2025 offers a significant clarification: the terminological substitution made by Legislative Decree 150/2022 does not alter the substance of the temporal regime. The thirty-day period continues to run from the moment the interested party receives—or could have received—formal notice of the conviction. The decision requires defense counsel and practitioners to maintain high vigilance regarding notifications, the only safeguard to avoid losing a remedy that, while exceptional, remains decisive for the protection of the right to defense.