Appeal to the Court of Cassation and PEC: When the Certificate of Conformity is Not Essential (Order 16361/2025)

The telematic process has introduced interpretative challenges regarding formalities. Notification via PEC is common practice, but what happens if the hard copy of a judgment is filed without the required certificate of conformity? The Order of the Court of Cassation no. 16361 of June 17, 2025, addresses this question, clarifying the limits of the inadmissibility of the appeal.

The Obligation of Certification: A Safeguard of Certainty

Article 9, paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter, of Law no. 53 of 1994, requires the defense lawyer to certify the conformity to the telematic original when extracting a hard copy of a digitally native document (e.g., a judgment notified via PEC). This certification is a fundamental safeguard for legal certainty and the authenticity of procedural documents. In the past, its absence has often led to the inadmissibility of appeals to the Court of Cassation, precluding a review of the merits.

The Supreme Court, with Order no. 16361/2025, has, however, offered a more pragmatic interpretation, mitigating the consequences. The ruling's headnote states that:

The filing in the court registry, within twenty days of the last notification, of a hard copy of the contested decision prepared in telematic original and notified via PEC, lacking the defense lawyer's certificate of conformity pursuant to art. 9, paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter, of Law no. 53 of 1994, does not result in the inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation if the respondent, upon appearing, also files a duly authenticated hard copy of the decision, or does not deny, pursuant to art. 23, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree no. 82 of 2005, the conformity of the informal copy to the original notified to them, or further – as in this case – where the opposing party is merely summoned and the appellant files the certificate of conformity by the chamber hearing or the discussion hearing.

This ruling is crucial. The Court, while reiterating the importance of the certification, acknowledges that its initial absence can be remedied or may not be relevant under certain circumstances. The objective is to provide the Court of Cassation with an authentic copy of the contested decision, regardless of who certifies its conformity or when, as long as the certainty of authenticity is achieved.

The Court of Cassation's Solutions: When Form Yields to Substance

Order no. 16361/2025 identifies three scenarios in which the lack of initial certification does not lead to inadmissibility:

• Copy Authenticated by the Respondent: The filing of a hard copy authenticated by the opposing party remedies the deficiency.
• Failure to Disclaim: If the opposing party does not expressly deny the conformity of the informal copy (art. 23, paragraph 2, Legislative Decree no. 82/2005), it is deemed acknowledged.
• Late Certification: If the opposing party is merely "summoned," the appellant can certify conformity even by the chamber hearing or the discussion hearing.

These principles align with the ruling of the United Sections no. 8312 of 2019, promoting greater formal tolerance, provided that the certainty of the document is guaranteed.

Conclusions: Balance and Practicality

Order no. 16361/2025 marks a step towards a more substance-oriented jurisprudence. The Court of Cassation reiterates that procedural rules aim at the correct formation of judgment and the protection of rights, not at creating insurmountable obstacles due to mere omissions that can be easily remedied. For lawyers, it is a reminder of the importance of formalities, but also a reassurance about the possibility of rectifying certain omissions, especially when authenticity can be guaranteed at a later stage. More efficient and less bureaucratic justice is in everyone's interest.