Cassation on Filing via PEC and PST Portal: The Burden of Proof

1. The facts

   The case stems from an appeal filed before the Court of Cassation against an order of the Turin Court of Appeal. According to reports from outlets such as Cassazione.net and Altalex, the defendant had been convicted at first instance of fraud and forgery. Defense counsel filed an appeal by sending the document via Certified Electronic Mail (PEC) to the clerk's office of the appellate court, failing to use the Criminal Document Filing Portal (PDP). The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, noting that the channel used was not the one mandated by post-Cartabia Reform regulations. Before the Supreme Court, the defense attempted to justify the PEC filing by citing alleged ministerial system malfunctions that supposedly made access to the official portal impossible, yet failed to produce any official certification of failure or suitable technical documentation to prove the hindrance.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The regulatory framework revolves around the principle of exclusivity for electronic filing:

   1. Art. 111-bis c.p.p. establishes the mandatory nature of electronic filing for documents and acts via identified technical channels.
   2. Art. 582 c.p.p. requires that appeals follow the forms provided by the aforementioned article, under penalty of filing irregularity.
   3. Art. 87 of Legislative Decree no. 150/2022 definitively moved past the emergency regime that allowed the use of PEC, making the portal the only legitimate tool.
   4. The Ministerial Decree of July 18, 2023, technically specifies that the PDP is the sole means for filing appeals, dictating that any other method be considered devoid of procedural effects.

3. What the case law says

   The case law of the Supreme Court has consolidated an extremely rigorous orientation regarding the digital transition. The fundamental principle is that a filing made via PEC, where the portal is mandatory, must be considered tamquam non esset. The court clarified that inadmissibility is a necessary sanction to ensure order and the automation of procedural flows. Recently, it was specified that defense counsel cannot merely complain of a generic service disruption; instead, counsel must provide rigorous proof of the malfunction. This is achieved in two ways: either by presenting the official certification published on the PST portal by DGSIA, or, in the case of an uncertified malfunction, by producing specific technical evidence, such as dated and timed screenshots or support tickets, demonstrating the objective impossibility of proceeding with the traditional filing.

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. Lessons for professionals

   1. Never wait until the last day for electronic filing, to allow for maneuvering room in case of system slowdowns.
   2. In the event of portal errors, immediately document the hindrance via full screenshots of the screen, including the system clock and URL.
   3. Promptly open a support ticket with the Ministry of Justice help desk and keep the identification number as proof of the filing attempt.
   4. Constantly monitor the PST portal to check for any published national malfunction certifications that legitimize the use of PEC.

References: Articolo 111-bis Codice di Procedura PenaleArticolo 582 Codice di Procedura PenaleD.Lgs. 150/2022 (Riforma Cartabia)D.M. 18 luglio 2023

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 11 September 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