Criminal Appeals: The Inadmissibility of Photographic Allegations According to the Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 22027/2025)

In the complex and rigorous landscape of criminal procedural law, the form of acts is of paramount importance. Every step, every document, must comply with precise formalities to ensure legal certainty and the full protection of the parties. A recent intervention by the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 22027 of May 13, 2025 (filed on June 11, 2025), has provided an important clarification regarding the validity of documentary attachments in appeal documents, particularly when dealing with simple photographic reproductions.

This ruling, presided over by Dr. E. Calvanese and drafted by Dr. M. Rosati, dealt with the appeal filed by the defendant S. P. M. S. G. and declared the appeal inadmissible, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin of February 7, 2025. But what are the reasons for this inadmissibility and what lessons can we draw from it?

The Rigor of Art. 581 c.p.p. and Necessary Documentation

Article 581 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the forms and contents of the appeal document. In particular, paragraph 1-quater, introduced by recent reforms, establishes the obligation for the defense counsel to attach to their appeal document the documentation attesting to the defendant's will, such as the power of attorney to appeal and the election of domicile. This provision aims to strengthen transparency and certainty regarding the client's intention to proceed with the appeal, avoiding disputes about the origin and authenticity of the mandate.

The Supreme Court addressed the case where the defense counsel had attached to the appeal document not the originals or authenticated copies of the required documentation, but mere photographic reproductions. This practice, although sometimes dictated by the need for speed, proved to be non-compliant with legal requirements, leading to the inadmissibility of the act.

Inadmissibility of the Appeal: When a Photo Isn't Enough

The heart of the matter lies in the need to guarantee the origin and authenticity of procedural acts. Judgment no. 22027/2025 clearly reiterated this fundamental principle, enunciating a maxim that deserves full attention:

In matters of appeals, the appeal document to which photographic reproductions of the power of attorney to appeal, containing the defendant's election of domicile, as well as their identity card and the postal dispatch receipt by which the package was sent to them, have been merely attached by the defense counsel is inadmissible, pursuant to art. 581, paragraph 1-quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the aforementioned documentation – if not authenticated or incorporated, "per relationem" or by incorporation, as an integral part of the appeal document – offers no guarantee of origin.

This maxim is of extreme importance. The Court emphasizes that a simple photograph of a document, such as the power of attorney to appeal, the defendant's identity card, or the shipping receipt, is not sufficient. The reason is simple but profound: a photographic reproduction, if not accompanied by authentication or if not "received per relationem" or "by incorporation" as an integral part of the act, offers no guarantee as to its origin and genuineness. In other words, it is not possible to be certain that the document reproduced photographically is actually the original and that it comes from the person who owns it.

Case law of the Court of Cassation has always insisted on the need for certain forms for procedural acts, to protect the regularity of the proceedings and the rights of the parties. Photographic reproductions, in the absence of an attestation of conformity to the original by a public official (such as the defense counsel themselves, within the limits of their powers, or a notary), or without a clear reference and incorporation into the main document, do not satisfy this requirement.

The Court of Cassation's Reasons: Legal Certainty and Guarantee of Origin

The decision of the Court of Cassation is based on cardinal principles of our procedural system. Article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that acts are performed in writing, while Articles 111 and 111-bis govern the forms of acts and their transmission. The digitalization of the process has introduced new methods, but has not diminished the need for certainty and reliability.

The request for authentication or clear incorporation is not a mere bureaucratic formality, but an essential guarantee for:

• **The origin of the act:** Ensuring that the document actually comes from the person who drafted or signed it.
• **The integrity of the content:** Protecting against possible alterations or manipulations of the original document.
• **Legal certainty:** Providing a solid and unequivocal basis for judicial decisions, avoiding future disputes about the validity of acts.
• **Protection of the parties:** Ensuring that the defendant's will is expressed clearly and verifiably, preventing abuses or errors.

The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation aligns with previous rulings (such as no. 32123 of 2020 and no. 29185 of 2024), reinforcing the trend that procedural formalities, although they may appear stringent, are indispensable pillars for a fair and just trial.

Conclusions and Reflections for Legal Practice

Judgment no. 22027/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for all legal operators, particularly defense counsel. Diligence in observing formalities is an indispensable requirement for the validity of procedural acts, especially in a sensitive area such as criminal appeals.

To avoid the risk of inadmissibility, it is essential that the documentation attached to appeal documents, as required by art. 581, paragraph 1-quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be submitted in original, in a copy conforming to the original (attested by the defense counsel or another public official), or that it be clearly incorporated into the act itself in a way that unequivocally guarantees its origin and authenticity. Mere photographic reproduction, without due care, is not sufficient. This principle underscores once again how, in law, and particularly in criminal proceedings, form is often substance, and its correct observance is a guarantee of justice and legality.