The case, explained
Criminal United Sections of the Supreme Court: the transitional regime for appeals in the Nordio Reform
6 min read · Updated October 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa
The United Sections of the Supreme Court are called to resolve one of the most intricate knots in recent procedural law: the retroactive applicability of the repeal of the specific mandate for appealing sentences rendered in absentia. According to reports from the legal press between August and October 2024, the issue arises from the conflict between the Cartabia Reform, which had tightened admissibility requirements, and the subsequent Nordio Reform, which eliminated this formal burden without providing an explicit transitional discipline. This jurisprudential intervention follows other important clarifications by the Supreme Court on various aspects of the same reform, covered in dedicated articles in this column, such as the digital signature of appeals and the repeal of abuse of office. Through the story of Gaio Sventura and the support of Avv. Prudenzia Cavillo, we will explore how the legislator's silence can transform a simple bureaucratic requirement into an insurmountable barrier to access to justice, or conversely, into a door reopened toward the second instance.
In brief
The article analyzes the jurisprudential conflict referred to the United Sections regarding the nature of the rule that repealed the specific mandate for appeal (Art. 581, comma 1-ter c.p.p.). While the rigorist orientation invokes the principle of tempus regit actum, the favor impugnationis thesis suggests the immediate application of the more favorable rule. The twin case of Gaio Sventura illustrates the practical consequences for defendants tried in absentia during the transition between the two reforms.
The facts
According to reports from Cassazione.net and Giurisprudenza Penale, the case originates from a criminal trial where a defendant, tried in absentia in the first instance, had filed an appeal through his lawyer. The Court of Appeal declared the challenge inadmissible because it lacked the so-called specific mandate issued after the sentence, a requirement introduced by the Cartabia Reform and in force at the time. During the pendency of the appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision, the Nordio Law (L. 114/2024) came into force, which formally repealed the specific mandate requirement.
The case reached the Second Criminal Section of the Supreme Court, which, noting the absence of transitional rules and the potential interpretive conflict, referred the matter to the United Sections with a specific referral ordinance. The procedural stage is thus at the level of legitimacy, aimed at establishing whether an appeal "born" inadmissible under the old law can be "cured" by the new law that repeals the defect, before the conviction becomes final.
The rules at play
The central provisions are three:
- Article 581, paragraph 1-ter, c.p.p., now repealed, which imposed the filing of a specific mandate to appeal sentences issued in absentia under penalty of inadmissibility;
- Article 2 of Law 114/2024, which eliminated this paragraph to simplify access to appeals;
- Article 11 of the Preleggi, which establishes the general principle of non-retroactivity of the law, contrasted with the principle of lex mitior provided by Article 2 of the Penal Code, usually referred, however, to substantive law and not procedural rules.
What the case law says
The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has split into two fronts. The first, more rigorous, supports the principle of tempus regit actum: the validity of a procedural act must be assessed according to the law in force at the time of its performance, making subsequent repeals irrelevant. The second orientation, inspired by favor impugnationis, suggests that rules limiting the right of defense must give way to a new evaluation by the legislator that considers them outdated, especially if the trial is still ongoing and the decision of inadmissibility has not become final.
- Try edit.legal AI
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.
What it teaches professionals
- Always verify the status of mandates in appeals filed during the period of validity of the Cartabia Reform.
- Promptly raise the objection of applicability of the procedural lex mitior in pending legitimacy proceedings.
- Monitor the filing of the grounds of the United Sections to adapt defensive strategies in ongoing trials.
- Pay attention to the distinction between purely procedural rules and rules with substantive effects on personal liberty.
References: Articolo 581 comma 1-ter c.p.p.Legge 9 agosto 2024 n. 114Articolo 11 PreleggiArticolo 2 c.p.
Related cases
Frequently asked questions
What is the impact of the reform on appeals already declared inadmissible?
If the decision is not yet final (the appeal to the Supreme Court is pending), the outcome will depend on the United Sections' decision on the retroactivity of the repeal.
Does the Nordio Reform apply to all crimes?
The repeal of the specific mandate concerns the methods of filing an appeal for any crime, provided the defendant was tried in absentia.
What are the formal requirements for the mandate of appeal after the Nordio Reform?
After the entry into force of the Nordio Reform, the obligation of a specific mandate issued after the sentence was eliminated, but a general power of attorney for litigation is always necessary.
Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal
Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.
Try edit.legal for free