Cartabia Criminal Corrective Decree: Final Approval by the Council of Ministers

1. The facts

   The legislative process, as reported by NT+ Diritto and Quotidiano Giuridico, concluded with the approval of a decree aimed at correcting procedural pitfalls that hindered the right of defense. This is not an individual judicial proceeding, but a structural reform definitively approved by the Government in response to representations from the legal profession and the judiciary. The measure intervenes during a phase of digital transition in the justice system, seeking to balance the efficiency required by the NRRP with constitutional guarantees.

   Specialized media emphasized that the primary goal was to reduce the workload of court registries by eliminating redundant formal requirements for defense counsel. Regarding its temporal scope, the legislation is now fully in force, having passed the stage of Parliamentary Justice Committee opinions and consolidated the procedural framework for first-instance and appeal proceedings.

2. 

   The legal framework

   The core of the reform lies in the amendment of Article 157-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), which governs notifications to non-detained defendants. The provision now stipulates that where the defendant elects domicile at the office of a court-appointed counsel, notification is valid only if the lawyer expressly accepts the election or assignment, thereby preventing proceedings from continuing without the defendant's knowledge. Article 581 c.p.p. has been reformulated to mitigate grounds for the inadmissibility of appeals: whereas previously the failure to submit a new declaration or election of domicile for second-instance proceedings resulted in the automatic rejection of the appeal, the corrective decree establishes that, absent any changes, the previous declaration remains valid.

   Finally, Article 111-bis c.p.p. establishes the mandatory status of the digital criminal trial (PPT). This rule ensures full traceability and efficiency in filing documents, rendering paper filings inadmissible except in cases of proven malfunction of the ministerial portal.

3. What the courts say

   Case law from the Court of Cassation has progressively clarified that digitalization rules must not constitute an obstacle to the right of defense. Consolidated rulings of the Joint Session (Sezioni Unite) have established that, in the event of a certified malfunction of IT systems, defense counsel is entitled to reinstatement of terms to file documents in paper form or via certified email (PEC), thereby avoiding unjust forfeitures. The fundamental principle is that formal requirements cannot prevail over substantive rights when the impediment is technical and not attributable to the party.

   Furthermore, the Court of Cassation has specified that amendments governing appeal requirements are procedural in nature and apply in accordance with the principle tempus regit actum. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that the requirement of specificity in the grounds of appeal remains strict: while the reform eliminates excessive bureaucratic hurdles, it does not relieve counsel of the duty to formulate precise challenges to the first-instance decision.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Continuously monitor the functionality of the digital portal and avoid waiting until the day of the deadline to file appeals.
   2. Always secure express written acceptance of domicile when acting as court-appointed counsel to prevent defects in service.
   3. Carefully verify the alignment between appeal grounds and the specific rulings of the contested judgment, as the corrective decree simplifies formal procedures without relaxing the requirement of substantive technical defense.
   4. Maintain complete documentary proof of every attempt to access ministerial IT systems in the event of server delays or errors.

References: Art. 157-ter cppArt. 581 cppArt. 111-bis cppD.Lgs. 150/2022D.Lgs. 114/2024

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 1 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction