System Malfunction and Real Precautionary Measures: The Supreme Court with Ruling no. 18444/2025 Clarifies Procedural Terms

In the era of justice digitalization, the telematic criminal process is a fundamental resource, but it is not without its pitfalls. The possibility of a computer system malfunctioning raises crucial questions, especially when peremptory terms and personal or property freedom are at stake. It is in this context that the relevant Ruling no. 18444 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is inserted, offering an essential clarification on the consequences of the failure to file procedural documents electronically due to system technical problems.

Challenges of the Telematic Process and Precautionary Measures

Our criminal procedural system provides for the adoption of precautionary measures, personal (such as detention) or real (such as preventive or conservatory seizure), which profoundly affect individuals' rights. Against such measures, the law guarantees specific means of appeal, including review, characterized by extremely strict deadlines. Failure to comply with these deadlines can have very serious consequences, such as the loss of effectiveness of the measure itself, as provided for by articles 309, paragraph 10, and 324, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transition to the telematic process has made the filing of documents almost exclusively digital, introducing a new variable: the reliability of the computer system. What happens, therefore, if a defense lawyer fails to file a request for review on time due to a malfunction of the justice portal?

The Case of G. C. and the Cassation Ruling

The issue was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in the case involving defendant G. C., after the Court of Review of Agrigento had rejected a request. The crucial point concerned precisely the failure to file the request for review electronically, attributed to a system anomaly. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling no. 18444 of 2025 (President D. S. E., Rapporteur R. A.), provided a clear and reassuring answer for legal professionals, distinguishing between failure to file due to negligence and failure due to external and unforeseeable events. The headnote of the ruling impeccably summarizes the principle affirmed:

In matters of real precautionary appeals, the failure to electronically file a request for review due to system malfunction does not result in the loss of effectiveness of the measure pursuant to articles 309, paragraph 10, and 324, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which presupposes that the filing has been completed. Instead, for the appellant, the different remedy of restitution in the term for fortuitous events provided for by article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies.

This ruling is of fundamental importance. The Cassation clarifies that the loss of effectiveness of the precautionary measure, provided for by articles 309 and 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, occurs only when the filing of the document should have been "completed" within the deadlines but was not due to causes attributable to the appellant. If, on the other hand, the filing did not occur due to a malfunction of the telematic system, we are faced with a "fortuitous event," an unforeseeable and insurmountable event that prevents compliance with the deadline. In these circumstances, the penalty of loss of effectiveness cannot be applied, as the prerequisite of negligent or omissive conduct by the defense lawyer would be lacking.

Restitution in the Term: A Lifeline for the Right to Defense

The solution indicated by the Supreme Court is "restitution in the term" (ex art. 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This institution allows a party that has incurred a forfeiture due to fortuitous events or force majeure, or due to facts not attributable to it, to be readmitted to perform the procedural act. The application of article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in these cases is a bulwark in defense of the right to defense, a cornerstone of our constitutional system. The malfunction of the telematic system, in fact, cannot and must not prejudice a party's right to appeal a measure that affects its fundamental rights. The Cassation thus recognizes the need to balance the rigor of procedural deadlines with the guarantee of a fair trial, especially in a technological context that, while offering undeniable advantages, also presents vulnerabilities.

The relevant articles for this interpretation are:

• Art. 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Governs restitution in the term, allowing for the overcoming of forfeitures due to force majeure.
• Art. 309, paragraph 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Provides for the loss of effectiveness of personal precautionary measures in case of failure to decide on review within peremptory deadlines.
• Art. 324, paragraph 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Extends the principle of loss of effectiveness to real precautionary measures, making compliance with deadlines crucial.

Conclusions: An Important Step for Digital Justice

Ruling no. 18444 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the jurisprudence concerning the telematic criminal process. It reiterates a principle of legal civilization: technology must be a tool at the service of justice, not an insurmountable obstacle. By recognizing restitution in the term as a remedy for system malfunctions, the Court ensures that the right to defense is effectively guaranteed, preventing technical glitches from translating into irreversible prejudice for the parties. This orientation is fundamental for maintaining the trust of legal professionals and citizens in the judicial system, promoting a pragmatic and protective approach to the challenges posed by technological innovation.