Criminal Appeals: The Presence of a Special Attorney and Appeal Deadlines – Analysis of Judgment 20976/2025

In the complex landscape of criminal procedural law, the management of appeal deadlines is of paramount importance. An error or misinterpretation can have irreversible consequences for the defendant's defense. The Court of Cassation, with its recent Judgment No. 20976 of 14/05/2025 (filed 05/06/2025), has provided essential clarification regarding the applicability of Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for an extension of appeal deadlines for the defense counsel of a defendant tried in absentia. This ruling, presided over by Dr. D. S. E. and drafted by Dr. P. V., warrants careful analysis to understand its practical implications.

Context of the Judgment and the Issue of Absence

The procedural case under review concerned an appeal against a judgment issued by the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria. The defendant, R. L., had been indicated as absent in the judgment. However, during the hearing, a special attorney appointed by the defendant himself for the request of a special proceeding was present. The central issue that the Supreme Court was called upon to resolve concerned precisely the applicability of the extension of appeal deadlines in such a case. Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 150/2022), establishes that the deadlines for filing an appeal are extended by fifteen days for the defense counsel of a defendant tried in absentia. The *ratio* of this provision is to ensure greater protection for the right of defense in situations where the defendant has not had direct knowledge of the proceedings or the judgment.

In matters of appeals, the provision of Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which extends the appeal deadlines by fifteen days for the defense counsel of a defendant tried in absentia, does not apply in the case of an appeal against a judgment rendered in the presence, at the hearing, of the defendant's special attorney appointed for the request of a special proceeding, regardless of the actual request for the special proceeding. The defendant must be considered present in court pursuant to Article 420, paragraph 2-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is irrelevant that the judgment indicated him as absent.

The ruling of the Cassation Court is peremptory and clarifies a fundamental point: the extension of deadlines referred to in Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply if the defendant, although not physically present, has appointed a special attorney who was present at the hearing. The Court emphasizes that such a