Inability to Appear in Enforcement Proceedings: Cassation No. 16084/2025 Sets Criteria for Medical Certificate Assessment

Can a simple medical certificate prevent the holding of a criminal enforcement hearing? The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 16084 of 13 February 2025 (filed 28 April 2025), returns to the issue, offering a clear answer. The case concerned A. L., who had filed a certificate of "acute gastroenteritis" to justify his absence before the Court of S. M. Capua Vetere. The enforcement judge proceeded nonetheless; the defence appealed, alleging a violation of the right to defence under art. 666 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible and reiterated a practical rule of great importance for lawyers and defendants.

The Core of the Decision

The Court bases its reasoning on articles 666 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as constitutional case law on due process. The absence of the interested party in the enforcement hearing is relevant only if:

• the interested party has expressed the will to be heard personally;
• the impediment is represented in a specific and documented manner, i.e., capable of allowing the judge to verify the actual impossibility of participating;
• the request and documentation are filed promptly, so as not to prejudice procedural economy.

In the specific case, the certificate lacked indications on the severity of the pathology and its actual impact on the ability to attend, so the judge could legitimately proceed.

In matters of enforcement proceedings, the impediment to the interested party's appearance is relevant if they have requested to be heard personally, provided that it is represented in a manner that can be appreciated and evaluated by the presiding judge. (Case in which the Court deemed irrelevant a medical certificate attesting, generically, to gastroenteritis, without further indications on the consequences of the pathology regarding the impossibility of participating in the proceedings).

The maxim, seemingly simple, expresses two crucial concepts. First: the impediment is not in re ipsa, but must be made "evaluable" by the judge, otherwise the right to be present yields to the need for speed. Second: the medical documentation must be detailed (diagnosis, prognosis, duration, possible need for absolute rest), otherwise it does not pass the seriousness test required by art. 666, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Comparison with Previous Case Law

The ruling is in line with decisions such as Cass. no. 2865/2013 and no. 26762/2020, which have excluded the automatic suspension for health reasons, and together with the more recent no. 437/2024, focused on the burden of specific allegations. It is also consistent with the constitutional direction which, while valuing the right to defence, requires it to be balanced with the principle of reasonable duration of the proceedings (Constitutional Court no. 45/2003 and no. 197/2014).

Practical Implications for Defence Counsel and Defendants

In light of the reaffirmed principles, anyone wishing to request an adjournment of an enforcement hearing for health reasons must:

• submit the request personally or through their defence counsel, stating the desire to be heard;
• attach a detailed certificate, possibly accompanied by examinations or precise clinical indications;
• specify the foreseeable duration of the illness and the possible impossibility of participating via video conference;
• propose, if necessary, remote participation under art. 45-bis of the Prison Regulations, demonstrating cooperation with the judicial authority.

Only in this way can the risk of a hearing held in absentia be avoided, with potentially irreparable consequences on the enforcement level (e.g., rejection of enforcement incidents or revocation of benefits).

Conclusions

Judgment no. 16084/2025 confirms a consolidated trend: the burden of proving the impediment to appear in a concrete and verifiable manner rests with the interested party. In the absence of substantiated elements, the enforcement judge can – and must – proceed, under penalty of procedural paralysis. For professionals, this requires greater care in preparing documentation and in the timeliness of requests; for defendants, it is an invitation not to abuse generic certificates. The balance between the effectiveness of the right to defence and the reasonable duration of the proceedings once again passes through the quality of defence acts.