Inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation: commentary on ruling no. 29322 of 2024

The ruling no. 29322 of June 20, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, raises an important reflection on the rules governing appeals in an emergency context, such as that characterized by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the Court declared an appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible due to the lack of digital signature by the defense attorney, establishing that malfunctioning of the digital signature cannot be invoked as a valid justification.

The regulatory context

The decision fits within the regulatory framework outlined by the Decree Law of October 28, 2020, no. 137, converted into law no. 176 of December 18, 2020. In particular, Article 24, paragraph 6-sexies, establishes that the lack of a digital signature is a cause of inadmissibility of the appeal. This means that the defense attorney cannot justify their failure to sign by citing fortuitous events or force majeure.

  • Key regulatory provision: Art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, d.l. October 28, 2020
  • Exclusion of the possibility to invoke malfunctions of the digital signature
  • Clarification on the distinction between malfunctions of the signature and problems of the criminal process portal

Analysis of the ruling

19, is a cause of inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Art. 24, paragraph 6-sexies, d.l. October 28, 2020, no. 137, converted, with modifications, by law no. 176 of December 18, 2020, its lack of digital signature by the defense attorney, who cannot deduce the malfunctioning of the digital signature invoking the existence of fortuitous events or force majeure, since said malfunction cannot be assimilated to that of the criminal process portal, officially certified by the General Director for Automated Information Services, with a measure published in the Portal of Telematic Services of the Ministry of Justice pursuant to Art. 24, paragraph 2-bis, d.l. cited.

A relevant aspect of the ruling is the clear distinction between the malfunctioning of the digital signature and the issues related to the criminal process portal. While the latter has been officially certified by the General Director for Automated Information Services, issues related to the digital signature cannot be assimilated to such circumstances, and therefore cannot constitute a justification for the inadmissibility of the appeal.

Final considerations

This ruling represents an important precedent in the field of appeals, highlighting the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules, especially during a period when the use of technology has taken on a central role. The lack of digital signature by the defense attorney is not just a formal issue, but implies the need to ensure the validity and timeliness of appeals, fundamental elements for effective and adequate justice. Therefore, it is crucial that defense attorneys pay the utmost attention to fulfilling such obligations, to avoid having their actions compromised by technical issues.

Bianucci Law Firm