Electronic Filing and Precautionary Appeals: Cassation Ruling 19415/2025 on Incorrect PEC Address

The Italian criminal proceedings, with the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 10 October 2022, no. 150), have made the electronic filing of documents mandatory. This innovation has raised questions about the validity of documents filed via a non-compliant PEC address. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 19415 of 17/04/2025, has provided crucial clarification.

Regulatory Context and Challenges

Article 87-bis of Legislative Decree no. 150/2022 mandates the use of specific PEC addresses for electronic filing. Errors can occur. The Supreme Court had to determine whether a precautionary appeal (artt. 309 and 310 c.p.p. - Code of Criminal Procedure), even if received by the competent office, should be declared inadmissible due to an incorrect PEC address. The consequences for the defendant C. P. M. would have been severe.

The Cassation's Decision: Ruling 19415/2025

Ruling no. 19415/2025 by the Cassation, presided over by A. E. and drafted by T. F., annulled without referral the decision of the Palermo Tribunal for the Supervision of Detention of 20/01/2025. It established a principle that mitigates formalism in favour of safeguarding the right to defence. The maxim is:

In matters of precautionary appeals, the electronic filing of the appeal to a certified email address different from the one indicated in the decree of the Director General for Automated Information Systems referred to in art. 87-bis, paragraph 1, legislative decree 10 October 2022, no. 150, is not a cause for inadmissibility, provided that the document, within the deadline set for its filing, has been materially acquired by the registry of the judge competent to decide.

This principle is fundamental. The Cassation recognises that an error in sending to a non-compliant PEC address is not a ground for inadmissibility, provided that the document has been materially acquired by the competent registry and that such acquisition occurred within the peremptory deadline. Thus, the "achievement of the purpose" of the act is favoured, preventing formal defects from prejudicing the parties' positions.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

This ruling is part of a complex case-law debate, with "Conflicting Maxims" precedents (e.g., no. 48804 of 2023). The 2025 orientation consolidates a more guarantor-based and pragmatic view, offering greater legal certainty to lawyers. The conditions for validity, even with an incorrect PEC address, are:

• The document must be materially acquired by the competent registry.
• The acquisition must occur within the peremptory deadline for filing.
• Proof of such acquisition lies with the party that made the filing.

Ruling no. 19415 of 2025 represents a significant step towards a more flexible and substantive management of electronic criminal proceedings. By acknowledging the possibility of human error, it prevents a technical glitch from resulting in irreparable damage to the right to defence. It is a positive signal for a judicial system adapting to the challenges of digitalisation.