Appeal to the Supreme Court: Deadlines in Summary Appeal Proceedings under Ruling 25981/2025

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 25981 of July 15, 2025, provides a fundamental clarification regarding the deadlines for filing appeals, specifically for the defendant appellant in the context of summary appeal proceedings. This decision, with Dr. L. I. as rapporteur and author and Dr. A. P. as president, addresses an issue of significant practical interest for legal practitioners and defendants, precisely outlining the conditions for benefiting from the extended appeal deadlines provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure. A full understanding of the implications of this ruling is crucial to avoid forfeiture and ensure proper protection of rights during legal proceedings.

Summary Appeal Proceedings and Appeal Deadlines

The right to appeal is a cornerstone of defense in our legal system. The Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), in Article 585, establishes the ordinary deadlines for appeals, providing for an extension of fifteen days (paragraph 1-bis) when the defendant has been "tried in absentia." However, the issue becomes more complex with the introduction of 'non-participatory chamber proceedings' (Art. 598-bis c.p.p.) for appeal judgments. This procedure allows the Court of Appeal to decide based on the case files, without scheduling a hearing to which the defendant or their lawyer has the right to attend, unless a timely request for participation has been made. It is precisely on this point that the Supreme Court has provided a decisive interpretation.

Ruling No. 25981/2025: The Supreme Court's Key Principle

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Ruling No. 25981 of 2025, had to clarify whether a defendant appellant, whose appeal judgment was handled through non-participatory chamber proceedings without a request for participation, could benefit from the fifteen-day extension of the deadline for appealing to the Supreme Court, typically reserved for those "tried in absentia."

In matters of appeals, the defendant appellant cannot be considered "tried in absentia" if the appeal judgment was handled through non-participatory chamber proceedings and no timely request for participation under Art. 598-bis, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made. This is because, in such an event, the trial proceeds without scheduling a hearing to which the aforementioned has the right to participate. Therefore, for the purpose of filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant cannot benefit from the fifteen-day extension of the appeal deadline provided for by Art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This statement unequivocally clarifies that the condition of being "tried in absentia" does not automatically arise in non-participatory chamber proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasizes that a defendant cannot be considered "absent" from a hearing to which, by the very nature of the procedure (Art. 598-bis c.p.p.), their participation is not foreseen. The extension of the deadline is linked to the actual impossibility of participating in a hearing that, instead, should have been scheduled. If the defendant has not requested participation, implicitly accepting the summary procedure, they cannot subsequently invoke an absence that did not occur within the legally prescribed terms.

Practical Implications for Defense

The consequences of this interpretation are significant. For the defendant T. B., in the specific case that led to the ruling, the Court of Appeal of Milan had declared the appeal inadmissible. The Supreme Court's ruling reiterates that:

• The fifteen-day extension of the deadline for appealing to the Supreme Court (under Art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, c.p.p.) is strictly linked to the condition of being "tried in absentia" at a hearing that the defendant had the right to attend.
• In the case of an appeal judgment handled through non-participatory chamber proceedings (Art. 598-bis c.p.p.), the defendant is not considered "tried in absentia" if they have not made a timely request for participation.
• The failure to request participation implies acceptance of the summary procedure, excluding the possibility of invoking an absence that does not constitute such for the purpose of extending deadlines.

It is therefore essential for the defense counsel to carefully assess, from the appeal stage onwards, the advisability of requesting participation in the chamber proceedings, should they deem the presence of the defendant or their lawyer necessary. Otherwise, the ordinary deadlines for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court must be taken into account, without the possibility of an extension.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 25981 of 2025 by the Supreme Court of Cassation, with Dr. I. as rapporteur, serves as an important warning for legal practice. It reiterates the need for scrupulous attention to procedural mechanisms and appeal deadlines, especially in a legal context increasingly oriented towards simplified and summary procedures. For the defendant and their lawyer, the key is conscious and proactive participation, even when it involves expressly requesting presence at hearings that would otherwise proceed without their direct interaction. Only in this way can unpleasant forfeitures be avoided and ensure that every phase of the criminal proceedings is handled with the utmost diligence and awareness of the rules.