Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Ordinanza — n. 12917/2026 — snpen AI generated

Criminal appeal dismissed for lack of qualified defense counsel signature under Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case Number Ordinanza — n. 12917/2026 — snpen
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Italy (IT)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Cassazione declared the appeal inadmissible because it was signed by the interested party rather than a qualified defense attorney. The appellant, Saidi Slim, failed to comply with the requirement that appeals be submitted by a lawyer enrolled in the special register. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the appeal and imposed a fine of three thousand euros on the appellant.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 571, comma 1, and Art. 613, comma 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Art. 610, comma 5-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: An appeal must be signed by a qualified defense attorney; failure to comply renders the appeal inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
qualified defense counsel special register requirement inadmissible appeal Code of Criminal Procedure procedural defect legal representation court of cassazione

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 571, comma 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 613, comma 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 610, comma 5-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Rilevato, pertanto, che il ricorso deve essere dichiarato inammissibile, deplano, a norma dell'art. 610, comma 5-bis, cod.
Law n. 103 of 2017

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Sez. U, n. 8914 del 21/12/2017
103 del 2017;Sez. U, n. 8914 del 21/12/2017, dep.
AI generated
Ordinanza — n. 27550/2022 — snpen
Italian court dismisses appeal due to failure to file by a registered defense attorney.
Ordinanza — n. 17189/2024 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed as inadmissible because the petition was signed personally by the accused rather than by a registered defense attorney.
Ordinanza — n. 34497/2022 — snpen
Appeal dismissed for lack of counsel signature; appeal must be signed by a registered defense lawyer under criminal procedure code.
Ordinanza — n. 27777/2025 — snpen
Court dismisses appeal as personally presented by defendant, violating mandatory defense attorney signature rule.
Ordinanza — n. 17192/2024 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed as inadmissible because the petition was signed personally by the accused rather than by a qualified defense attorney.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

NCONAudita la relazione svolta dal Consigliere FRANCESCO ALIFFI;RITENUTO IN FATTO E CONSIDERATO IN DIRITTOVisti gli atti.Esaminati il ricorso e l'ordinanza impugnata.1. Rilevato che l'atto di impugnazione è stato proposto personalmentedall'interessato, Saidi Slim, mentre avrebbe dovuto essere sottoscritto dadifensore iscritto nell'albo speciale della Corte di cassazione (artt. 571, comma 1,e 613, comma 1, cod. proc. pen., come modificati dalla legge n. 103 del 2017;Sez. U, n. 8914 del 21/12/2017, dep. 2018, Aiello, Rv. 272010-01).2. Rilevato, pertanto, che il ricorso deve essere dichiarato inammissibile, deplano, a norma dell'art. 610, comma 5-bis, cod. proc. pen. (introdotto dallamedesima legge n. 103 del 2017), con la condanna del ricorrente al pagamentodelle spese processuali e della somma di tremila euro in favore della Cassa delleammende. P.Q.MDichiara inammissibile il ricorso e condanna il ricorrente al pagamento dellespese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delleammende.Così deciso, in Roma 26 marzo 2026Il Consigliere estensore Il Presidente