International protection and notification by mail: Court of Cassation Order no. 28894 of 2025
The right of asylum and international protection represent areas of crucial importance where the protection of fundamental rights must be paramount. Often, however, procedural issues risk compromising access to justice for asylum seekers. An emblematic example is represented by Order no. 28894 of November 1, 2025, of the Court of Cassation, which addresses the issue of the notification of the decree rejecting an application for international protection via postal service and the related burden of proof regarding the timeliness of the appeal.
The case and the decision of the Supreme Court
In the case at hand, the appellant, identified by the initial U. (represented by lawyer B. D.), had challenged the rejection decision issued by the Territorial Commission before the Court of Bari. The Bari Court had declared the appeal inadmissible because it was deemed late, calculating the thirty-day period starting from the date of the decision indicated in the rejection order, without considering the actual date of receipt of the registered mail. The Court of Cassation deemed this approach incorrect, quashing the decision and remanding the case.
The principle of the Court of Cassation in Order no. 28894/2025
The Supreme Court expressed a fundamental principle regarding postal notifications and the burden of proof, which deserves to be analyzed in detail:
Notification by postal service of the decree rejecting an application for international protection is not completed upon the dispatch of the document, but is perfected upon the delivery of the relevant package to the addressee, with the consequence that the relative return receipt is the only document suitable to prove the delivery that has taken place, the date thereof, and the identity of the person into whose hands it was executed; it follows that the proof of the timeliness of the appeal is provided by the appellant through the filing of the envelope used for the registered mail dispatch, whereas the judge, in case of doubt, must request the production of the document containing the notification report by the respondent Administration or independently request a copy from the same Administration.
The principle of effective delivery and the duties of the judge
As clarified in the principle, notification by mail is not perfected by the simple dispatch of the document by the office, but requires effective delivery to the addressee. The return receipt is the primary instrument to demonstrate such circumstance. Should doubts arise regarding the timeliness of the filing of the appeal, the judge cannot limit themselves to rejecting the application based on presumptions, but must exercise their ex officio powers in line with Art. 35 bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and Art. 111 of the Constitution.
In particular, the judge's duties in case of uncertainty regarding the notification date include:
- Requesting the respondent Administration to produce the notification report;
- Independently requesting a copy of the documentation from the Administration itself;
- An in-depth verification of the envelopes and shipping receipts produced by the appellant.
Conclusions
Order no. 28894 of 2025 of the Court of Cassation strongly reaffirms the centrality of the right to a defense, also protected by Article 6 of the ECHR. Preventing access to a trial on the merits due to mere uncertainties regarding notification, without conducting the necessary investigative inquiries, constitutes a violation of the principle of due process. This ruling represents a fundamental guide for legal practitioners and a guarantee for the protection of the rights of migrants.
