Notifications to Expelled Defendants: The Court of Cassation (Judgment No. 25656 of 2025) and the Validity of Elected Domicile

In the complex landscape of criminal procedural law, the regularity of notifications plays a fundamental role in ensuring the proper conduct of proceedings and the full protection of the defendant's rights. But what happens when a defendant, after electing a domicile, is expelled from the territory of the State? The Court of Cassation, with the recent Judgment No. 25656 of 2025, has provided essential clarification, reaffirming a consolidated but crucially important practical principle.

The Centrality of Notifications in Criminal Proceedings

Notifications are legal acts through which a specific procedural act is brought to the attention of a subject. In criminal proceedings, their correct execution guarantees respect for the right of defense and the principle of adversarial proceedings. Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) governs the election or declaration of domicile, a mechanism that allows the defendant to indicate a certain place to receive communications, relieving the judicial authority of the burden of having to trace them personally. This tool is designed to facilitate the proceedings, but also to hold the defendant accountable.

However, paragraph 4 of Article 161 c.p.p. provides for an exception: if the defendant is unable to communicate a change of the declared or elected place due to fortuitous event or force majeure, notifications shall not produce any effect. It is precisely on this clause that the Supreme Court's attention focused in the case at hand.

The Case at Hand: Judgment No. 25656 of 2025

The procedural matter involved the defendant K. E. (alias T. E.), whose appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Rome on 27/09/2024, a decision subsequently confirmed by the Court of Cassation. The crucial point concerned the validity of the domicile election in light of a subsequent expulsion from Italian territory. The defendant's defense presumably argued that the expulsion should be considered a cause of force majeure, rendering the domicile election, and consequently subsequent notifications, ineffective.

The Court of Cassation, in the judgment presided over by Judge S. G. and reported by Judge T. G., instead confirmed the established case law, expressing a clear and unequivocal maxim:

The declaration of domicile election maintains its effects even after the defendant's expulsion, as the latter does not constitute a circumstance of fortuitous event or force majeure which, pursuant to Article 161, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prevents the defendant from communicating any change of the declared or elected place.

This maxim crystallizes a fundamental principle: expulsion does not release the defendant from the obligations arising from the election of domicile. This means that notifications sent to the previously elected domicile, even after forced removal from the country, are considered valid and effective. The reason lies in the fact that expulsion, despite being an event of great impact, is not considered an unforeseeable or irresistible circumstance that would prevent the defendant from fulfilling their duty to communicate a new domicile or to delegate a lawyer for the receipt of documents.

Expulsion and Force Majeure: A Clear Boundary

The case law of the Court of Cassation has long defined the contours of the