PEC Notifications in Criminal Proceedings: The Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 17235/2025) Reaffirms Absolute Nullity for Errors in Digital Domicile

In the complex landscape of criminal law, procedural accuracy is a bulwark protecting fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 17235 of 18/02/2025 (filed on 07/05/2025), has provided an important clarification regarding the election of domicile and the validity of notifications via Certified Electronic Mail (PEC). This ruling, which annuls with referral a decision by the Court of Appeal of Messina, is part of a context of increasing digitalization of proceedings and underscores the indispensable need to respect formalities to ensure the full exercise of the right to defence.

The Specific Case and the Regulatory Context

The procedural case involved the defendant C., with Public Prosecutor B. A., for whom the notification of the summons for the appeal hearing had been ordered. The election of domicile had taken place, as is now consolidated practice, at his lawyer's office, with the specific indication of the latter's PEC address. However, the notification was made to a PEC address different from the one explicitly indicated. The Court of Cassation, presided over by P. R. and with G. A. as rapporteur, deemed this error not a mere irregularity, but a cause for absolute nullity. It is significant to note that the case falls within the scope of a "paper-based" appeal hearing, conducted under the emergency pandemic regulations (Decree-Law 28/10/2020 no. 137, art. 23 bis, paragraph 2), which had amplified the use of digital tools, making the accuracy of electronic procedures even more crucial.

In matters of appeals, the election of domicile made by the defendant, together with the appeal document, at their lawyer's office, indicating the latter's certified electronic mail address as the place to receive notification of documents, is legitimate. Therefore, the notification of the summons for the appeal hearing made to a PEC address different from the one indicated, being unsuitable for enabling the recipient to become aware of the document, is affected by absolute nullity. (Case concerning a "paper-based" appeal hearing conducted under the emergency pandemic regulations).

This maxim from the Court of Cassation crystallizes a fundamental principle: the election of domicile at the lawyer's PEC address is fully valid and constitutes an effective means for receiving procedural documents. However, the core of the ruling lies in the peremptory assertion that a notification made to a PEC address different from the one specifically indicated by the defendant (through his lawyer) is unsuitable for achieving its primary purpose: bringing the document to the recipient's attention. This unsuitability does not translate into a mere intermediate nullity, but into an "absolute nullity." This means that the document is irremediably flawed and can be raised by the court ex officio at any stage and level of the proceedings, as it infringes upon the defendant's fundamental rights, such as the right to defence (Art. 24 of the Constitution and Art. 178, paragraph 1, letter c, of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Court thus reiterated the need for strict adherence to notification procedures, especially when they concern the defendant's ability to participate and defend himself in the proceedings.

The Importance of Absolute Nullity and the Right to Defence

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 179, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure) lists cases of absolute nullity, which include instances of omitted or invalid summons of the defendant. The ruling in question aligns perfectly with this provision, considering that notification to an incorrect PEC address is, in effect, equivalent to a failure to summon. The defendant C. would not have been able to have effective knowledge of the summons, severely prejudicing his ability to prepare his defence and participate in the appeal hearing. This principle has already been addressed by case law on several occasions (see previous maxims cited, such as no. 52517 of 2016 and no. 9363 of 2021), which have consistently emphasized that the regularity of notifications is a pillar of a fair trial. Technological evolution has introduced PEC as a preferred notification tool, but this should in no way diminish formal rigor; on the contrary, it amplifies it, requiring even greater precision in managing digital addresses.

• Right to Knowledge: Every procedural document must be brought to the attention of the parties in a certain and verifiable manner.
• Right to Defence: The ability to actively participate in the proceedings and prepare one's defence is directly linked to the regularity of notifications.
• Immutability of Elected Domicile: Once domicile is elected, any change or error in notification must be treated with the utmost severity.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Judgment no. 17235/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for all legal professionals. In an era of accelerated digitalization, the correctness of electronic procedures is not a detail, but an essential requirement for the validity of acts and the protection of rights. For lawyers, this means even greater care in indicating and verifying PEC addresses for the election of domicile and for managing notifications. For citizens, it is the reaffirmation that even in the digital environment, their right to be correctly informed and to defend themselves is fully guaranteed. The Supreme Court has thus reiterated that form, in criminal proceedings, is never a mere embellishment, but substance that safeguards justice and the legitimacy of judicial action, protecting the defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial.