Terms of Appeal in Absentia Proceedings: Commentary on Supreme Court Ruling No. 13530/2025

The Fourth Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation, with its ruling no. 13530 filed on April 8, 2025, has provided a significant clarification on the new regime for appeal terms introduced by art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), as amended by Legislative Decree 150/2022. The case originated from the appeal of F. R., who was tried in absentia and invoked the application of the "longer" term also to judgments whose operative part was read before the entry into force of the Cartabia reform. However, the Supreme Court deemed the appeal inadmissible and declared the raised question of constitutional legitimacy manifestly unfounded.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 585 c.p.p. and Art. 89 Legislative Decree 150/2022

The Cartabia reform introduced, for defendants tried in absentia, a term of 60 days (instead of 30) to file an appeal. However, art. 89, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 150/2022 establishes that this extension only applies to judgments whose operative part was pronounced from December 30, 2022, onwards, the date of entry into force of the decree itself. This results in a transitional provision that, as often happens, creates a temporal dual track.

The question of constitutional legitimacy of the combined provisions of art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and art. 89, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150, for conflict with arts. 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution, is manifestly unfounded, in that it is established that the longer term to appeal provided, in the interest of the defendant tried in absentia, by art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to judgments whose operative part was pronounced on a date subsequent to the entry into force of the aforementioned decree, as the legislator's choice, crystallized in the transitional provision, being aimed at identifying a certain moment to anchor the operability of the new appeal regime, is neither unreasonable nor restrictive of the right to defense, and the grounds constitute, on the other hand, a mere validity requirement of the judgment, to be understood as existing with the mere pronouncement of the operative part.

The maxim highlights two key passages: on the one hand, the Court excludes a violation of arts. 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution; on the other hand, it reiterates that the decisive moment for applying the new term is not the grounds but the mere reading of the operative part, considering such a choice neither unreasonable nor detrimental to the right to defense.

The Court's Reasons: Legal Certainty and Protection of Efficiency

The Supreme Court observes that the transitional provision "anchors" the new regime to a certain moment, the date of the pronouncement of the operative part. This avoids disputes over the commencement of the terms, especially in cases where the grounds are filed months later. Furthermore, it protects the balance between the right to defense and the reasonable duration of the proceedings (art. 111 of the Constitution).

• Temporal Certainty: the date of the reading of the operative part is objective and easily ascertainable.
• Equal Treatment: all parties to the proceedings know, from the moment of pronouncement, which term will apply.
• Procedural Efficiency: the risk of layered and dilatory appeals is reduced.

The Court, referring to contemporary rulings (Cass. nn. 16131/2024, 7104/2025), thus consolidates an orientation aimed at curbing extensive interpretations that could have generated uncertainty and disharmony between judgments prior to and subsequent to the reform.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Defendants

For defense counsel, the ruling requires careful verification of the date of pronouncement of the operative part: if prior to December 30, 2022, the 30-day term applies; if subsequent, the 60-day term. In case of doubt, the shorter term remains the prudent choice to avoid preclusions. The ruling also reinforces the need to request the contumacious extract and to promptly monitor any declaration of absence.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 13530/2025 fits into the jurisprudential trend that safeguards legislative freedom in transitional matters, provided it is not unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Cassation, balancing constitutional rights and the functionality of the proceedings, has reiterated that the extension of appeal terms in favor of defendants tried in absentia does not have retroactive effect. For legal professionals and defendants, the message is clear: the correct management of deadlines remains a matter of precise calendar management, on which the defense cannot afford to be distracted.