Cartaceo Procedure and Communication of the Public Prosecutor's Conclusions: Analysis of Cass. pen. Section II, Judgment No. 15245/2025
The Cartabia reform has revolutionized many criminal procedure institutes, including the paper-based procedure in appeals and cassation. The recent ruling No. 15245/2025 of the Court of Cassation, Section II, offers an opportunity to take stock of one of the most debated issues: the (lack of) obligation for the registry office to transmit the written conclusions of the Attorney General to the other parties to the proceedings.
The Regulatory Framework After July 1, 2024
Articles 598-bis c.p.p. (appeal) and 611 c.p.p. (cassation), amended by Legislative Decree 150/2022, govern the paper-based procedure "with written proceedings" which replaced the emergency model introduced during the pandemic. The legislator pursued two objectives: speed and rationalization of acts, reducing the formal burdens on the registry office.
- Requests of the Attorney General: filing within 15 days before the hearing.
- Defenses: option to submit new grounds and briefs; reply briefs up to 5 days before.
- No obligation for automatic communication of conclusions to the parties.
This results in a regime that shifts the duty to monitor the electronic file and request copies of the prosecution's submissions onto the lawyer.
The Ruling of Judgment No. 15245/2025
In the paper-based procedure amended by the so-called "Cartabia reform," whose provisions have been in force since July 1, 2024, the communication by the registry office of the public prosecutor's conclusions to the other parties, unlike what was provided for the previous "pandemic" paper-based procedure, is no longer foreseen for either the appeal proceedings pursuant to art. 598-bis cod. proc. pen. or for cassation proceedings pursuant to art. 611 cod. proc. pen. It is exclusively established that the requests of the Attorney General must be submitted fifteen days before the hearing and that the parties may submit new grounds, briefs, and, up to five days before the hearing, reply briefs. Therefore, the requests made by the public party are available to the other parties, who may request copies from the registry office, while any communications relating to the filing must be considered a mere "courtesy," as there is no longer any obligation in this regard.
Comment: The Court reiterates that the burden of obtaining the Attorney General's conclusions now falls on the private parties. The legislative choice favors "on-demand" access to documents, deeming the reply period sufficient. However, the need for defense lawyers to organize systematic monitoring of the file is evident, in order to avoid prejudice to the right of defense enshrined in Articles 24 and 111 of the Constitution.
Practical Implications for Defense Lawyers and Public Parties
The decision concerns all operators dealing with the paper-based procedure:
- Defense Lawyers: are called upon to promptly check the file to prepare reply briefs; it is advisable to schedule periodic checks or activate electronic alerts.
- Attorneys General: the need to file their conclusions within the deadline remains, under penalty of possible inadmissibility or forfeiture.
- Registry Offices: any notices remain an "act of courtesy," devoid of invalidating effects in case of omission.
The Court of Cassation has thus oriented practice, reducing litigation on nullities due to non-communication and standardizing, in a restrictive sense, the case law formed during the health emergency (cf. Cass. 20885/2021, 32812/2023).
Conclusions
Judgment No. 15245/2025 confirms the "streamlining" line of the Cartabia reform: fewer formal requirements, greater responsibility for the parties. While, on the one hand, this speeds up appeal proceedings, on the other hand, it requires the defense to take a proactive approach in managing the digital file. Ultimately, awareness of procedural burdens and the adoption of good organizational practices become essential to ensure the effectiveness of the adversarial principle.
