Cassation Ruling No. 10459/2025: Right to Adversarial Proceedings and Request for Oral Hearing in Criminal Appeals during the Pandemic

The management of justice during the health emergency introduced special regulations that modified procedural practices. In this context, the Court of Cassation, with ruling No. 10459 of January 21, 2025 (filed on March 17, 2025), provided a fundamental clarification regarding the deadlines for requesting an oral hearing in criminal appeal proceedings, emphasizing the protection of the right to adversarial proceedings. A ruling of great importance for lawyers, defendants, and the principles of a fair trial.

Emergency Regulations and Adjournment Ex Officio

Article 23-bis of Decree-Law No. 137 of October 28, 2020, regulated the conduct of criminal hearings, often providing for a non-participatory chamber proceeding, unless requested by the parties. The case in question concerned the defendant A. B., whose appeal hearing, initially scheduled in chambers, had been adjourned ex officio by the Court of Appeal of Florence due to "organizational needs." The defense then submitted a request for an oral hearing in relation to the new date. The question was whether this request was late, as the deadlines should be calculated from the original date or the adjourned date.

The Cassation Ruling: Protection of Adversarial Proceedings

The Supreme Court, Fourth Criminal Section (President F. M. C., Rapporteur V. P.), quashed without referral the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Florence of June 20, 2024, affirming a crucial principle:

In appeal proceedings conducted in accordance with the emergency pandemic regulations, an ex officio adjournment to a fixed date for organizational reasons, without any procedural activity taking place at the first hearing, which was scheduled in chambers due to the absence of a request for oral discussion, does not render the request for an oral hearing, made by the party within the deadlines set by art. 23-bis, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 137 of October 28, 2020, converted, with amendments, by Law No. 176 of December 18, 2020, late. Such request should be calculated with regard to the adjourned date and not the date originally set for the hearing, thus making the conduct of the proceedings with a non-participatory chamber proceeding a cause of general nullity of intermediate regime for violation of adversarial proceedings, which can be raised with an appeal to the Court of Cassation.

In practice, the Cassation has established that if an appeal hearing, initially in chambers, is adjourned ex officio without procedural activity, the request for oral discussion is not late if submitted within 15 days of the new adjourned date. This strengthens the right to adversarial proceedings (Art. 111 of the Constitution, Art. 6 of the ECHR), the violation of which, in the case of a non-participatory chamber proceeding despite a timely request, results in a general nullity of intermediate regime, which can be raised with an appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Implications and Conclusions

This ruling clarifies an interpretative uncertainty regarding deadlines, reinforcing the centrality of the right to adversarial proceedings even in emergency contexts. The Cassation reaffirms that an ex officio adjournment cannot preclude the exercise of the right to an oral hearing, if the request is timely with respect to the new date. It serves as a warning to ensure the correct application of the rules and the full observance of adversarial proceedings, the foundation of any democratic judicial system.