Cassation Court Ruling 16601/2025: Uniqueness of the Secondary Notarial Office and Aggregated Municipalities

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 16601 of 20/06/2025 (Rv. 675681-01), has provided fundamental clarification on notarial disciplinary offenses, focusing on the interpretation of the principle of uniqueness of the main office and the secondary office. The decision, arising from the appeal filed by C. against L., quashed with referral a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome, reaffirming a cornerstone principle for the notarial profession that warrants careful analysis.

The Principle of Uniqueness and Aggregated Municipalities: The Regulatory Framework

Notarial practice in Italy is governed by precise rules that define the limits and methods of exercising the profession. A crucial aspect concerns the possibility for a Notary to open a secondary office. Article 26, paragraph 2, of Law No. 89 of 1913 (Notarial Law), as amended over time by significant legislative interventions such as Legislative Decree No. 1 of 2012 and Law No. 124 of 2017, grants the Notary the faculty to open "a single secondary office" in "any municipality" within the region or district. This is complemented by Article 8 of Royal Decree-Law No. 1666 of 1937, which governs so-called "aggregated municipalities," i.e., those municipalities that, although not the Notary's assigned seat, fall within their territorial competence.

The interpretative issue that arose and which the Cassation Court resolved concerns precisely the compatibility between the provision of a single secondary office and the regulation of aggregated municipalities: is it possible to open an additional secondary office in an aggregated municipality?

The Cassation Court's Interpretation: The Maxim and Its Implications

In matters of notarial disciplinary offenses, Article 26, paragraph 2, of Law No. 89 of 1913 – as amended by Legislative Decree No. 1 of 2012, converted into Law No. 27 of 2012, and subsequently by Law No. 124 of 2017 – grants the Notary the faculty to open "a single secondary office" with regard to "any municipality" within the region or district comprising multiple regions, without further specifications or limitations useful for considering that this wording does not include the aggregated municipality, still governed by the first two paragraphs of Article 8 of Royal Decree-Law No. 1666 of 1937; thus, the tacit repeal of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned Royal Decree-Law can be considered only with regard to the determination of assistance times in the aggregated municipality, which have become subject to determination by the Notary (within the minimum limits set by the aforementioned Article 26) for both the assigned seat and the aggregated municipality.

The Court of Cassation, with ruling 16601/2025, has unequivocally clarified that the wording "any municipality" in Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Notarial Law also includes the aggregated municipality. This means that the principle of uniqueness of the secondary office applies extensively: the Notary can indeed open a secondary office, but only one, and if they decide to do so in an aggregated municipality, they cannot open another elsewhere. The opening of an additional secondary office in an aggregated municipality, in addition to the existing one or alongside the main seat, therefore constitutes a disciplinary offense.

The ruling further emphasizes that the tacit repeal of Article 8, paragraph 3, of Royal Decree-Law No. 1666 of 1937 concerns exclusively the determination of assistance times in the aggregated municipality, leaving the Notary free to determine them (while respecting the minimum limits imposed by Article 26). However, this repeal does not affect the general principle of the uniqueness of the secondary office. The ruling in C. v. L. was therefore quashed with referral precisely because the Court of Appeal had not correctly applied this principle, effectively allowing the opening of an additional secondary office.

• The Notary may open "a single secondary office."
• This faculty extends to "any municipality," including aggregated ones.
• Article 8, paragraph 3, of Royal Decree-Law 1666/1937 is tacitly repealed only for assistance times.
• Opening a second secondary office, even in an aggregated municipality, constitutes a disciplinary offense.

Conclusions: A Guide for Notaries

Ruling No. 16601/2025 of the Cassation Court represents a firm point in notarial regulation, reiterating the importance of the principle of uniqueness of the secondary office. For notarial professionals, this decision serves as a warning to interpret and apply current regulations scrupulously, avoiding expansive interpretations that could lead to disciplinary sanctions. It is essential that every Notary adheres to the clear indication of the Supreme Court, ensuring compliance with the rules and correctness in the exercise of their public function, in protection of legality and legal certainty.