Filing of audio and video files in the telematic civil process: Supreme Court ruling no. 29139/2025

The telematic civil process has revolutionized the daily operations of Italian courts, introducing undeniable advantages but also a complex network of technical rules. Among the most frequent doubts troubling legal professionals is the admissibility of electronic documentary evidence, such as audio or video recordings, when filed in formats that do not perfectly correspond to ministerial specifications. The Supreme Court of Cassation has intervened on this delicate matter, offering a fundamental clarification that reassures legal practitioners and prioritizes substance over form.

The case and the Supreme Court's decision

The dispute brought to the attention of the judges of legitimacy, culminating in judgment no. 29139 of 04/11/2025, involved S. (represented by lawyer F. C.) and M. (represented by lawyer A. C.). The Court of Appeal of Rome had previously rejected the appeal, confirming the validity of the documentary evidence produced in the first instance. The Court of Cassation, under the presidency of A. M. and with the report by G. C., confirmed this interpretive line, dismissing the appeal and establishing a cornerstone principle regarding electronic evidence.

The headnote of judgment no. 29139/2025

To understand the scope of this ruling, it is essential to examine the official headnote issued by the judges of the Labor Section:

In the context of the telematic process, the filing of audio and video files in a manner not compliant with the technical specifications referred to in Art. 34 of Ministerial Decree no. 44 of 2011 (in this case, Art. 13 of the D.G.S.I.A. provision in force ratione temporis) is admissible and does not result in any nullity, as no procedural sanction is provided for such a violation, unless it results in the infringement of the rights of defense or the adversarial principle.

The Court has therefore clarified that non-compliance with the technical specifications provided by Ministerial Decree no. 44 of 2011 does not automatically entail the invalidity of the act or the evidence. In our procedural system, in fact, the principle of the exhaustiveness of nullities applies: an act cannot be declared null if the law does not expressly provide for such a sanction, unless it is unable to achieve the purpose for which it is intended.

The limits of nullity and the protection of the adversarial principle

The Cassation's decision is based on a balance between compliance with formal rules and the protection of constitutional rights guaranteed by Articles 24 and 111 of the Constitution. The key points analyzed by the judges include:

• Absence of express sanctions: The technical rules on the telematic process do not provide for the sanction of inadmissibility or nullity for filing files in non-standard formats.
• Achievement of the purpose: If the audio or video file, despite not being compliant with the specifications, is nonetheless accessible and usable by both the judge and the opposing parties, the act has fully achieved its evidentiary function.
• The safeguard clause: The only exception that can justify a ruling of nullity or inadmissibility occurs if the technical non-compliance causes a concrete infringement of the right of defense or the adversarial principle, for example by preventing the opposing party from effectively becoming aware of the file's content.

Conclusions on the scope of the ruling

In conclusion, judgment no. 29139/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward towards the dematerialization and digitalization of the civil process, favoring a substantialist approach. The telematic process must be a tool to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth and not a set of formal traps capable of nullifying decisive evidence solely due to the failure to comply with a file extension. It is understood that, to avoid disputes and procedural delays, prudence always dictates adhering, where possible, to ministerial technical specifications.