Analysis of Judgment No. 25799 of 2023: Jurisdiction and Electronic Appeal

The recent judgment No. 25799 of May 19, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides significant insights regarding the regulation of electronic appeals during the Covid-19 health emergency. This decision clarifies the boundaries of jurisdiction among judges, establishing that it is not only the judge who issued the challenged provision that must declare the inadmissibility of an electronically filed appeal, but also the higher court judge, the "judge ad quem".

The Regulatory Context

The reference legislation is contained in Decree Law No. 137 of 2020, converted into Law No. 176 of 2020. In particular, Article 24, paragraph 6-sexies, establishes the requirements for electronic appeals. The judgment thus addresses the issue of functional jurisdiction, clarifying that, in the absence of an explicit preclusion, both judges may have jurisdiction over the inadmissibility of the appeal.

The Implications of the Judgment

19 - Electronic appeal - Inadmissibility ex art. 24, paragraph 6 sexies d.l. No. 137 of 2020 - Alternative jurisdiction of the “a quo” judge and the "ad quem" judge - Existence - Reasons. Under the pandemic emergency regulation due to Covid-19, the functional jurisdiction to declare the inadmissibility of the electronically filed appeal for the lack of any of the requirements indicated in art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, letters a) and e), d.l. of October 28, 2020, No. 137, converted, with amendments, by law No. 176 of December 18, 2020, does not exclusively belong to the judge who issued the challenged provision, but also, alternatively, to the "ad quem" judge, as no preclusion emerges from the cited art. 24 in this regard.

The decision of the Court of Cassation has significant practical relevance: it offers greater flexibility for appellants, who can hope for an assessment of inadmissibility by the higher judge as well, although this does not exclude the responsibility of the first judge in the proper management of appeals. This approach could reduce the risk of legal uncertainties and ensure more equitable access to justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 25799 of 2023 represents an important step towards greater clarity and certainty in the system of electronic appeals, especially in an emergency context. The distinction of jurisdiction between the "a quo" judge and the "ad quem" judge can help streamline the process and ensure that appeals are treated with due attention, always keeping at the center the right of defense of the parties involved.

Bianucci Law Firm