Appeal Deadlines in Absentia Judgments: Commentary on Cassation Ruling No. 13530/2025

The Fourth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 13530 filed on April 8, 2025, has provided a significant clarification on the new regime of appeal deadlines introduced by Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), as amended by Legislative Decree 150/2022. The case originated from the appeal filed by F. R., who was tried in absentia and invoked the application of the "longer" deadline even for judgments whose operative part was read before the entry into force of the Cartabia reform. However, the Supreme Court deemed the appeal inadmissible and declared the raised question of constitutional legitimacy manifestly unfounded.

The Regulatory Framework: Article 585 c.p.p. and Article 89 Legislative Decree 150/2022

The Cartabia reform introduced, for defendants tried in absentia, a deadline of 60 days (instead of 30) to file an appeal. However, Article 89, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 150/2022 establishes that this extension applies only to judgments whose operative part was pronounced on or after December 30, 2022, the date of entry into force of the decree itself. This results in a transitional regulation that, as often happens, creates a dual temporal track.

The question of constitutional legitimacy of the combined provisions of Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 89, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, is manifestly unfounded, in contrast with Articles 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution, in the part where it is established that the longer appeal deadline provided, in the interest of the defendant tried in absentia, by Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to judgments whose operative part was pronounced after the entry into force of the aforementioned decree, as the legislator's choice crystallized in the transitional provision, being aimed at identifying a certain moment to anchor the operability of the new appeal regime, is neither unreasonable nor restrictive of the right to defense, and the reasoning constitutes, moreover, a mere validity requirement of the judgment, to be understood as existing with the mere pronouncement of the operative part.

The maxim highlights two key points: on the one hand, the Court excludes a violation of Articles 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution; on the other hand, it reiterates that the decisive moment for applying the new deadline is not the reasoning but the mere reading of the operative part, deeming such a choice neither unreasonable nor detrimental to the right to defense.

The Court's Reasons: Legal Certainty and Protection of Efficiency

The Supreme Court observes that the transitional provision "anchors" the new regime to a certain moment, the date of the pronouncement of the operative part. This avoids litigation over the commencement of deadlines, especially in cases where the reasoning is filed months later. Furthermore, it protects the balance between the right to defense and the reasonable duration of the proceedings (Article 111 of the Constitution).

• Temporal Certainty: the date of the reading of the operative part is objective and easily ascertainable.
• Equal Treatment: all parties to the proceedings know, from the moment of pronouncement, which deadline will apply.
• Procedural Efficiency: the risk of layered and dilatory appeals is reduced.

The Court, referring to contemporary rulings (Cass. nn. 16131/2024, 7104/2025), thus consolidates an orientation aimed at curbing extensive interpretations that could have generated uncertainty and disharmony between judgments prior to and subsequent to the reform.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Defendants

For defense counsel, the ruling requires careful verification of the date of pronouncement of the operative part: if prior to December 30, 2022, the 30-day deadline applies; if subsequent, the 60-day deadline. In case of doubt, the shorter deadline remains the prudent choice to avoid preclusions. The ruling also reinforces the need to request the contumacious extract and to promptly monitor any declaration of absence.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 13530/2025 fits into the jurisprudential trend that safeguards legislative freedom of choice in transitional matters, provided it is not unreasonable. The Court of Cassation, balancing constitutional rights and the functionality of the proceedings, has reiterated that the extension of appeal deadlines in favor of defendants tried in absentia does not have retroactive effect. For legal professionals and defendants, the message is clear: proper management of deadlines remains a matter of precise calendar management, on which the defense cannot afford to be distracted.