Criminal Cassation No. 16134/2025: Annulment for Violation of the Right to Defence in the Appeal Proceedings

In the landscape of Italian criminal proceedings, judgment No. 16134/2025 of the Court of Cassation intervenes to safeguard one of the cornerstones of a fair trial: the concrete possibility for the defence counsel to know the documents and prepare an effective defence strategy. The ruling, which annulled without referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples, reiterates that the mere formality of appointment does not exhaust defence guarantees if it is not followed by actual access to the case file.

The Procedural Case

The case arose from an appeal filed by G. V., whose defence, after the appeal was lodged, was entrusted to a new lawyer. The latter, through numerous PEC (certified email) messages, had requested the registry to send the complete trial file. However, the documentation arrived partially and, moreover, shortly before the hearing conducted in writing. Faced with this breach, the Supreme Court held that Article 178, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sanctions any infringement of the right to adversarial proceedings with absolute nullity, had been violated.

The Ruling and its Meaning

In the context of appeal proceedings, the new defence counsel appointed after the appeal has been lodged has the right to view the procedural documents. Therefore, the registry's failure to respond to such a request or the late and incomplete transmission of what was requested constitutes, pursuant to Article 178, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a violation of the right to adversarial proceedings, prejudicing the preparation of an effective defence. (Case in which the Court annulled without referral the contested judgment on the grounds that the case file showed that the new defence counsel had sought contact with the registry by sending numerous formal communications via PEC to obtain the transmission of the documentation relating to the trial file, which was sent to him only partially and shortly before the hearing conducted in writing).

The Court strongly recalls the principle, already established by the United Sections No. 42363/2006 and confirmed by the recent No. 46027/2024, according to which the lack of knowledge of the documents prevents the defence counsel from effectively influencing the content of the proceedings. This is not a mere formality: adversarial proceedings, under Article 111 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR, thrive on equal information between the prosecution and the defence. When the registry does not cooperate, the nullity is irremediable, and annulment without referral is the necessary consequence.

Practical Aspects: What Defence Counsel Must Do

In light of this ruling, lawyers are called upon to proactively manage their requests to the registry, documenting every step. It is useful to prepare a dossier to be presented at the hearing to demonstrate any non-compliance by the office.

• Send the request for copies via PEC well in advance, specifying the required documents precisely;
• If necessary, urge compliance with requests for execution pursuant to Article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
• Keep receipts of dispatch and acceptance, as well as any documented telephone reminders;
• Ask the judge for an extension of time if the file arrives late.

Dialogue with European Jurisprudence

The decision aligns with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (cases Fittante v. Italy and Mirilashvili v. Russia), which require timely and complete access to documents to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The Italian Supreme Court thus integrates the conventional parameter into our system, reminding judicial authorities of their duty to oversee the work of the registries.

Conclusions

Judgment 16134/2025 clarifies that the right to defence tolerates no compromise: without knowledge of the documents, the appeal is incomplete, and the decision cannot withstand scrutiny. This serves as a warning both to judicial offices, which are called upon to be genuinely efficient, and to lawyers, who must rigorously safeguard every phase of the proceedings.