Electronic Filing and Negative Fourth PEC: The Party's Burden of Reaction in Opposition to the Statement of Liabilities – Commentary on Order No. 15801/2025

In the era of civil procedure digitalization, Certified Electronic Mail (PEC) has become an indispensable tool, but also a source of complex interpretative issues. Its correct management is crucial for the validity of procedural acts, and the Supreme Court is often called upon to clarify procedural aspects that can determine the success or failure of a legal action. Order No. 15801 of June 13, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, falls precisely within this context, providing fundamental guidance on the parties' duty of diligence in the event of non-completion of the electronic filing of an appeal, specifically that under art. 98 of the Bankruptcy Law.

The ruling, which involved C. C. versus C. A. and annulled with referral a previous decision of the Court of Teramo dated 22/01/2018, addresses a problem of extreme practical relevance for lawyers and professionals: what happens when the 'fourth PEC', which attests to the outcome of the filing, is unfavorable?

The Regulatory Framework and the Challenge of Electronic Procedure

The Electronic Civil Procedure (PCT), introduced and progressively made mandatory by regulations such as Decree-Law 18/10/2012 No. 179 (converted with amendments by Law 17/12/2012 No. 221) and Ministerial Decree Justice 21/02/2011 No. 44, has revolutionized the ways of interacting with judicial offices. The filing of documents occurs via electronic submission, and the notification and communication system is based on PEC. In this system, the 'fourth PEC' plays a crucial role: it represents the acceptance receipt from the court clerk's office, which certifies the successful completion of the document filing. If this receipt is not favorable, the filing has not been completed.

Article 98 of the Bankruptcy Law (Royal Decree of March 16, 1942, No. 267), now the Code of Business Crisis and Insolvency, governs opposition to the statement of liabilities, a fundamental proceeding for creditors who contest the exclusion or partial admission of their claims. The timeliness of the appeal is, in this context, an indispensable requirement, and the failure to complete the electronic filing can lead to irremediable forfeitures.

Order 15801/2025: The Fundamental Principle

The Supreme Court, with Order No. 15801/2025, has crystallized an essential principle regarding electronic filing, emphasizing the party's responsibility and burden of action. The headnote of the judgment reads:

In the matter of electronic filing of the appeal pursuant to art. 98 of the bankruptcy law, in the event that the fourth PEC does not yield a favorable outcome, it is incumbent upon the party to act immediately to remedy the non-completion of the filing, by, alternatively and depending on the case, a) making a new timely filing, to be considered in continuation of the previous activity, after contesting the reasons for rejection; (b) promptly submitting a request for reinstatement of time limits, where the forfeiture is deemed to have occurred, but due to a fact not attributable to the party; in the first case, in the face of apparent regularity of the communication process, the party fulfills the burden of completeness of its submissions, by attaching the reasons indicated by the clerk's office within the fourth PEC and contesting the validity thereof, while it is incumbent upon the opposing party to promote and provide proof of any contestations other than those that justified the rejection.

This passage is of crucial importance. The Court emphasizes that, when the 'fourth PEC' indicates a negative outcome, the party cannot simply ignore it or assume that the problem will resolve itself. On the contrary, a