Supreme Court of Cassation: if the PEC is saturated, the communication of the measure by fil-ing with the registry is valid.

The Court of Cassation has once again clarified an important principle in electronic justice: the saturation of the recipient's PEC box does not invalidate the communication of the judicial measure, which is considered validly carried out with the filing at the registry. This is reiterated by judgment no. 27724 of 17 October 2025, with which the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the appeal of a worker in the context of a dispute regarding dismissal.

The case starts with the rejection of the complaint filed by the worker against the first instance judgment, considered late by the Court of Appeal because it was filed after the thirty-day deadline provided for by art. 1, paragraph 58, of Law no. 92/2012 (Fornero rite). The deadline, as specified by the judges, ran from the communication of the sentence by PEC by the registry, regularly sent but not delivered to the applicant's lawyer due to the "full" box.

The defence counsel had argued that, in the absence of the receipt of delivery, the communication could not be said to have been completed and that, therefore, the deadline for appealing had not expired. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, observing that the failure to receive the message due to saturation of the space available in the PEC box does not constitute a defect attributable to the judicial office, but to the recipient himself. In this case, the communication is considered validly executed by filing it at the registry, pursuant to art. 16, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree no. 179/2012, converted with amendments by Law no. 221/2012.

The principle is now consolidated: the diligent management of one's certified mailbox is one of the professional obligations of the lawyer, who must guarantee the availability of space at all times for the receipt of procedural documents and communications. Any non-delivery for reasons attributable to the addressee does not affect the completion of the communication, nor does it oblige the registry to repeat the mailing to other attorneys who may have been appointed.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirms an orientation aimed at protecting the certainty of electronic communications and the functionality of the digital process, reiterating that negligence in the management of the PEC cannot translate into an advantage for the recipient of the communication.