Atypical Notifications in Criminal Proceedings: The Court of Cassation and Intermediate Nullity (Judgment 19086/2025)

In the complex labyrinth of Italian criminal procedural law, the correct execution of notifications represents a fundamental pillar for the guarantee of a fair trial and the protection of the defendant's rights. An error in this phase can have serious consequences, potentially invalidating entire proceedings. But what happens when a notification, even if it does not strictly adhere to formalities, still achieves its purpose, effectively informing the interested party? The Court of Cassation has ruled on this delicate issue with Judgment no. 19086 of 10/04/2025 (filed on 22/05/2025), offering a valuable clarification that balances formal rigor with the substance of communication.

Judgment 19086/2025: A Beacon on Atypical Notifications

The ruling of the Third Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, presided over by L. R. and with V. P. as rapporteur, arose from an appeal against an order from the Tribunal of Liberty of Rome, which had annulled a previous decision with referral. The specific case concerned the defendant T. P. and the issue of the notification of the summons decree. The Court had to address a peculiar situation: the notification of a notice of hearing before the Tribunal of Review had been served on the lawyer, as required by art. 161, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but only after the defendant had already been directly informed by the officers, both by telephone and by email sent via institutional certified email (PEC). The dilemma therefore arose as to whether such a mode of communication, although atypical, could remedy any formal defects in the notification.

The Heart of the Matter: General Intermediate Nullity and Effective Knowledge

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for different categories of nullities: relative, intermediate, and absolute, each with its own regime for deductibility and remedy. Intermediate nullities, governed by articles 180 and 182 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are distinguished by being remediable if not timely objected to by the interested party or if the act has nevertheless achieved its purpose. It is precisely on this concept of "