Presence at hearings and procedural deadlines: the Court of Cassation clarifies with order no. 28186/2025

In the landscape of Italian civil procedural law, compliance with deadlines and legal awareness of judicial orders represent fundamental pillars for guaranteeing the right to a defense and a fair trial. Often, however, interpretative doubts arise regarding the communication obligations incumbent upon the court registry, particularly when an order is issued directly during a hearing. The Court of Cassation has addressed this delicate issue with a recent ruling that warrants careful analysis.

The case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The matter brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, culminating in order no. 28186 of October 23, 2025, originated from a dispute between G., represented by counsel V. F. M., and I., represented by S. A. The Court of Appeal of Rome had issued an order directly during a hearing, after retiring to chambers, without the case having been previously adjourned or reserved for decision. The appellant alleged the failure of the court registry to communicate such order to the counsel who were not present, arguing the nullity of the procedure due to a violation of the right to an adversarial process.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, confirming the established precedent according to which the reading of an order in open court is equivalent to notification for all parties, whether present or absent. The official headnote of the decision is provided below:

An order read in open court by the court of appeal, following the adversarial debate between the parties and after retiring to chambers, where the case has not been previously expressly adjourned or reserved for decision, is considered communicated during the aforementioned hearing, with the consequence that it need not be communicated to non-present counsel by the court registry.

Practical consequences for counsel and the duty of diligence

This ruling, citing articles 134 and 176, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, reaffirms a cornerstone principle: the hearing is a moment of active participation. If counsel decides not to attend or to leave before the conclusion of the hearing activities, including immediate deliberations in chambers, they assume the risk of not being aware of the measures adopted. In such cases, there is no subsidiary obligation for notification or electronic communication by the judicial office's registry.

To avoid forfeiture of rights and irreparable prejudice to their clients, legal professionals must adopt specific precautions:

• Always ensure presence at the hearing, either personally or through a delegated substitute counsel.
• Promptly verify the status of the electronic case file and the hearing minutes in the event that one must leave before the formal closing of the session.
• Monitor with extreme attention any orders issued following deliberations in chambers held on the same day.

Conclusions: self-responsibility in civil proceedings

In conclusion, order no. 28186/2025 of the Court of Cassation strongly reaffirms the principle of self-responsibility of the parties in civil proceedings. The court registry cannot compensate for the absence of counsel where the law provides for an absolute presumption of knowledge. This decision represents an important warning for all practitioners in the sector, highlighting how professional diligence and constant attendance at hearings remain irreplaceable elements for the correct and effective protection of rights in judicial proceedings.