CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s37171135 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s5679B020 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s35B972C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s6D38C583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#202122 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s6B870CDD { width:153.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION CASE OF PATRICOLO AND OTHERS v.   ITALY (Applications nos.   37943/17 and 2 others)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Appeal on points of law declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation for failure to file notice of service of the contested judgment within the legal time-limit • Contested decision adequate to achieve legitimate aim of legal certainty and proper administration of justice • Accepting late submissions would have frustrated the aim of ensuring expeditious conduct of proceedings • Margin of appreciation not overstepped • Very essence of the right to access to a court not impaired Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Appeals on points of law declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation for failure to file within the legal time-limit an attestation that the paper copy of the notice of service was a true copy of the electronic original • Absence of such an attestation did not prevent Court of Cassation from assessing compliance with the legal time-limit for filing an appeal at the earliest stage of the proceedings • Need to flexibly adapt formal requirements during transition from paper-based to online processing • Declaring appeals inadmissible, without giving the applicants a fair chance to submit the attestation at a later stage went beyond legitimate aim pursued • Very essence of the right of access to a court impaired   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 23   May 2024   FINAL   23/08/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Patricolo and Others v.   Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Péter Paczolay,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   37943/17 and 2 others – see appended table) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Italian nationals and an Italian limited liability company (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention concerning the decisions of the Court of Cassation to declare the applicants’ appeals inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16   April 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the Court of Cassation’s decisions to declare the applicants’ appeals on points of law inadmissible for failure to file with the registry a notice of service of the decisions they wanted to appeal against in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits set out in the law. The applicants complained that the decisions of the Court of Cassation amounted to excessive formalism and unjustifiably restricted their right of access to a court under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ personal details, the names of their representatives and the dates on which their respective applications were lodged are set out in the appendix. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. application n o .   37943/17 5.     On 8 March 2011 the applicants in application no.   37943/17 commenced civil proceedings in the Verona District Court against G.A., who had been their lawyer in a set of criminal proceedings brought against them. In a judgment of 7 June 2013, the Verona District Court found that G.A. had been negligent in carrying out his professional activities, partially allowed the applicants’ claim and ordered G.A. to pay 17,600   euros (EUR), plus interest and sums arising from revaluation of the claim, and EUR   1,380 for legal costs and expenses. 6.     On 10 June 2015 the Verona Court of Appeal reversed that judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim for damages. 7.     The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law. In their appeal they stated that the judgment of the Court of Appeal had been served on them on 30   June 2015. Together with their appeal they filed with the registry a copy of the contested judgment certified as a true copy by the registrar of the Court of Appeal. They did not file a copy of the notice of service of the judgment. 8 .     On 15 September 2016 the Court of Cassation sent the applicants a direction scheduling the hearings of the case in private together with a proposal of the judge rapporteur to declare the appeal inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirements set out in Article   369   §   2   (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 25 below). 9.     With their observations of 3   October 2016, the applicants filed a paper copy of the contested judgment and its notice of service, together with an attestation that it was a true copy of the original electronic documents which had been served on them by certified email ( posta elettronica certificata ( PEC ) – an email which complies with special formal requirements set out by law and which is admissible evidence of when the email was sent and received). 10.     Following the proposal of the judge rapporteur, the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible ( improcedibile ) (order of 30   November 2016, no.   24481). The Court of Cassation stated the following: “The applicants did not comply with the obligation to file at the registry, together with the appeal, a copy of the contested judgment with its notice of service, as set out in Article   369   §   2   (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, failing which an appeal will be declared inadmissible... [T]he applicants did not file any copy of the contested judgment as served, but only a copy certified by the registrar on 16   September 2015 which lacked the notice of service. ... the first section of this court, by means of interlocutory order no.   1081 of 21   January 2016, sent to the First President, for possible referral to the plenary Court of Cassation, the issue of the admissibility of an appeal when a copy of the contested judgment as served is not filed at the registry by the applicant ... [but] has been filed by another party to the proceedings. However, there is no need to wait for the decision of the plenary since, in the present case, the defendant has not participated in the proceedings and therefore there is no copy in the case file of the decision which includes a notice of service.” application n o .   54009/18 11.     In the context of enforcement proceedings brought against it, the applicant company in application no.   54009/18 challenged in the Milan District Court a garnishee order issued on 3   June 2013 by the Milan enforcement judge. In a judgment of 16 September 2016, the Milan District Court allowed the challenge, stated that the garnished sums were to be assigned to the enforcing creditor, R.G.I. S.r.l., and not to the intervener pledgee, M.I. S.p.A., and ordered the applicant company to pay the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings of both R.G.I. S.r.l. and M.I. S.p.A. 12.     By a certified email of 23 September 2016 R.G.I. S.r.l. served the judgment of the Milan District Court of 16   September 2016 on the applicant company. 13 .     On 22 November 2016 the applicant company appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law. It filed two copies of the contested judgment with the registry together with the appeal. The first copy was certified by the registrar of the Milan District Court as a true copy of the original. The second one was a paper copy of the judgment as served by certified email together with the notice of service. 14 .     On 30 December 2016 R.G.I. S.r.l. filed a cross-appeal in the proceedings in the Court of Cassation. This included a confirmation of the date of service of the contested judgment. 15.     The Court of Cassation agreed with the proposal of the judge rapporteur and declared the appeal inadmissible (order of 9   May 2018, no.   11022). It stated: “This court has repeatedly held that – in order to comply with the obligation set out in Article   369   §   2   (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and failing which the appeal will be declared inadmissible – a lawyer lodging an appeal in the Court of Cassation against a decision served on him by electronic means must file at the registry a paper copy of the certified email and of the notice of service of the contested judgment attached to it, together with an attestation certifying it as a true copy pursuant to section 9(1- bis ) and (1- ter ) of Law no.   53 of 1994 ... In the present case it is decisive that the attestation certifying that it is a true copy is missing in relation to the notice of service of the contested judgment as sent by certified email.” application n o .   20655/19 16.     F.M. brought an action against the applicants in application no.   20655/19, asking the Bologna District Court to declare ineffective a contract whereby A.S., a debtor of F.M., had sold an apartment to the applicants, so prejudicing the likelihood of F.M. being able to recover the sums owed by A.S. In a judgment of 5   February 2009, the Bologna District Court dismissed the action. 17.     On 9 March 2017 the Bologna Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, declared the contract of sale and purchase between A.D. and the applicants ineffective and ordered the applicants to pay part of F.M.’s legal costs and expenses. 18.     By certified email of 14   March 2017 F.M. served the judgment of the Bologna Court of Appeal of 9   March 2017 on the applicants. 19 .     On 12 May 2017 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law. Together with their appeal they filed with the registry a paper copy of the judgment as served on them by certified email, with the notice of service. 20 .     As stated in the Court of Cassation’s order of 5   October 2018, no.   24568 (p. 3- bis , §   2), F.M. participated in the proceedings. 21 .     On18 July 2017 the applicants filed another copy of the contested judgment, including an attestation by their lawyer that it was a true copy of the original electronic judgment. 22.     The Court of Cassation agreed with the proposal of the judge rapporteur and declared the appeal inadmissible (order of 5   October 2018, no.   24568). The Court of Cassation stated the following: “... the applicants, while alleging that the contested judgment was served on them by a certified email of 14   March 2017, failed to provide an attestation certifying that they had provided a true copy of the electronic documents concerning service ... in the parties’ case file, the paper copy of the certified email whereby the contested judgment was served lacks an attestation (including the lawyer’s handwritten signature) that the copy was a true one. Nor was this documentation filed by the respondent, who might have rectified the omission and therefore made the appeal admissible ... the applicants had to comply strictly with the formalities required by Art.   369   §   2   (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ...” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law 23.     Pursuant to Articles   325 and 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal to the Court of Cassation must be served on respondents within sixty days of the date of service of the contested judgment (the so-called short time limit for filing an appeal ( termine breve )). 24.     Under Article   327 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the contested judgment has not been served, the parties have six months to challenge it in the Court of Cassation (the so-called long time limit for filing an appeal ( termine lungo )). 25 .     The relevant parts of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide: “1. The appeal shall be filed with the registry within twenty days from the last service of the appeal on respondents, failing which it will be declared inadmissible. 2. Together with the appeal the following shall be filed, failing which the appeal will be declared inadmissible: ... (2) a certified copy of the contested judgment or decision together with the notice of service, if the contested judgment or decision was served ...” 26 .     Under Article   370 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the other party may lodge a cross-appeal within forty days of the date of service of the appeal. The relevant documents concerning the cross-appeal should be filed at the registry within the same time-limit. 27.     Article   372 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the parties to file documents relating to the admissibility of the appeal at the registry of the Court of Cassation, separately from the filing of the appeal, provided that they file them no later than fifteen days before the hearing in the case. 28.     Law no.   53 of 21   January 1994 (“Law no.   53 of 1994”, makes provision for “Lawyers’ and legal representatives’ powers to serve civil, administrative and extrajudicial documents”. The relevant part of section   9 reads as follows: “... 1- bis . If it is not possible to file a document which has been served [by certified email] with the registry by electronic means, the lawyer shall make a paper copy of the certified email, its attachments, and the acceptance and delivery receipts thereof, and shall attest that they are true copies of the electronic documents from which they are drawn pursuant to Article   23   §   1 of Legislative Decree no.   82 of 7   March 2005. 1- ter . In all cases where the lawyer must provide proof of service and it is impossible to do so by electronic means, he shall act pursuant to subsection 1- bis .” 29 .     Legislative Decree no.   82 of 7   March 2005 sets out a “Digital Administration Code”. Article   23 contains the following provisions on paper copies of electronic documents: “1. Paper copies of electronic documents ... shall have the same evidential value as the originals from which they are drawn if an authorised public official attests that they are true copies of the original in all respects. 2. Paper copies and extracts of an electronic document that comply with current technical regulations shall have the same evidential value as the original if their genuineness is not expressly denied. The obligation to keep the electronic original, when provided for by law, shall not be affected ...” Case-law of the Court of Cassation Compliance with the deadline set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a copy of the contested judgment together with the notice of service Judgment no.   9005 of 2009 30 .     According to the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation, the obligation to file at the registry a copy of the contested judgment together with the notice of service within the deadline set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the Court of Cassation to check that the appeal has been lodged within the short time limit set out in Articles   325 and 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When an appeal is lodged more than sixty days after the publication of the contested judgment, the date referred to in the notice of service is used to check that, at the moment when the appeal was lodged, the contested judgment had not yet become final. That procedural rule therefore allows to verify compliance with the principle of res judicata (see, for example, judgments of the plenary Court of Cassation nos.   9005 of 2009 and 21349 of 2022). 31 .     At first the Court of Cassation ruled that an applicant could file a copy of the contested judgment together with the notice of service separately from filing the appeal, under Article   372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided that this was done within the deadline set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that line of case-law, failure by the applicant to comply with this rule could not be cured by asserting external factors such as the other party’s failure to object to the appeal being heard, the other party’s filing of the required copy of the contested judgment, or the presence of that copy in the case file transmitted by the registry of the court that had given the contested judgment (see, among many other authorities, judgment of the plenary Court of Cassation no.   11932/1998, and judgments of the Court of Cassation nos.   19654 of 2004 and 888 of 2006). 32 .     The plenary Court of Cassation confirmed the same interpretation in judgment no.   9005 of 2009. It noted that the rule which made an application inadmissible for failure to comply with the deadline set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was justified by the nature of proceedings before the Court of Cassation and, in particular, by the need to carry them out expeditiously and directly and for them to be almost entirely directed by the court itself. The rule allowed the Court of Cassation to decide on the admissibility of the appeal without any further steps and without delay, and was also in compliance with the principle that the length of proceedings should be reasonable. Judgments nos.   25513 of 2016 and 10648 of 2017 33 .     The approach described above gradually evolved as the Court of Cassation accepted that some external factors might be relevant in declaring an appeal admissible, even though the applicant had failed to file a copy of the contested judgment together with the notice of service within the deadline set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 34 .     Referring also to Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and the case-law of the Court ( Mazzoni v.   Italy , no.   20485/06, 16   June 2015, and Trevisanato   v.   Italy , no.   32610/07, 15   September 2016), the plenary Court of Cassation held that an application which failed to comply with the procedural rule at issue could still be admissible if the contested judgment together with the notice of service (i) had been transmitted to the Court of Cassation by the registry of the court which had given the decision and had been served on the parties by the court (judgment no.   25513 of 2016), or (ii) had been filed by the other parties with their cross-appeals within the deadline set out in Article   370 of the Code of Civil Procedure (judgment no.   10648 of 2017). In the first case, the Court of Cassation stated that it would be able to check the date of service by merely consulting the case file, which could be transmitted to it at the applicant’s request by the registry of the court which had given the contested judgment. In the second case, since the adjudication of an appeal would in any event take place only after the deadline set out in Article   370 of the Code of Civil Procedure had expired, the Court of Cassation would have access to the date of service of the contested judgment in time to be able to decide without any delay on the admissibility of the appeal (see also the judgment of the plenary Court of Cassation no.   30421 of 2018). 35 .     In other situations, the Court of Cassation confirmed it would retain its original approach and find an appeal inadmissible if the application failed to comply with the time-limit set out in Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It considered this to be proportionate since the absence of the notice of service in the case file at an early stage of the proceedings would preclude it from checking – without taking any further steps and without delay – whether the short time limit for filing an appeal set out in Articles   325 and 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been complied with (see, for example, the plenary Court of Cassation no.   21349 of 2022). Attestation that paper copies of decisions served by certified email and the related notice of service are true copies of the electronic originals Judgments nos.   17450 and 30765 of 2017 36.     A different issue concerning the application of Article   369   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure arose in cases where the decision against which applicants intended to appeal to the Court of Cassation was served on them by certified email and electronic filing was not yet technically possible in the Court of Cassation. 37 .     In judgment no.   17450 of 14   July 2017, the Court of Cassation held that, pursuant to the combination of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section   9(1- bis ) and   (1- ter ) of Law no.   53 of 1994, in order for an appeal to be admissible applicants had to (i) file paper copies of the certified email together with its attachments, namely the contested judgment and the notice of service, at the registry of the Court of Cassation, and (ii) attest that the paper copies were true copies of the electronic originals. 38.     This approach was confirmed in, among other authorities, judgment no.   30765 of 2017. The Court of Cassation clarified that the rule on evidential value according to which paper copies of electronic documents were presumed to be genuine unless the other party expressly denied that they were true copies (see paragraph 29) did not apply in this case, as upholding the principle of res judicata involved public-interest considerations. It therefore could not be left to the parties to check that the copies were true copies. 39 .     Also in judgment no.   30765 of 2017, the Court of Cassation further explained: “The authentication of the certified email is necessary as only this makes it possible to ascertain the date and time of service on the recipient. The authentication of the attachments to the certified email is also necessary ... to comply with Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure ... An appeal must be declared inadmissible if the lawyer fails to file paper copies of the above-mentioned documents together with an attestation that they are true copies within the time-limit of twenty days from service of the appeal or where those copies have not been filed by another party together with an attestation that they are true copies ... Inadmissibility cannot be avoided by filing the missing documents after the time-limit of twenty days from service has expired, for the reasons stated by the plenary Court of Cassation in 2009 and 2017.” Judgments nos.   22438 of 2018 and 8312 of 2019 40 .     The same interpretation was at first also applied to the filing of the hard copy of an appeal originally drafted as an electronic document (judgment of the Court of Cassation no.   30918 of 2017). However, in judgment no.   22438 of 24 September 2018, the plenary Court of Cassation reconsidered that approach and stated: “There are valid reasons to partially reconsider the above-mentioned interpretation of the admissibility of an appeal to the Court of Cassation where it was originally served as an electronic document. Those reasons relate to the need to afford the highest possible level of protection to the right to a fair hearing ... This interpretation will be particularly attentive to the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality that must guide any interferences with the right of access to a court (Article   6   §   1 of the Convention; see, among other authorities, Mazzoni v.   Italy , cited above, and Trevisanato v.   Italy , cited above ...) ...” 41 .     On the basis of the above considerations, the Court of Cassation stated that the principles established by its case-law on the application of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of paper-based proceedings should be adapted to the specific characteristics of “e-justice” and, in particular, to a situation where an electronic procedure had been introduced at first and second instance but had not yet been implemented in the Court of Cassation. Since the service by certified email of an appeal drafted as an electronic document allowed other parties to receive the original appeal document, the other parties were able to check the paper copy the applicant had filed with the registry against the original received by certified email. The other parties would therefore be in a position to assert that the appeal documents were not true copies. If they failed to do that, the paper copy filed with the registry by the applicant would be treated as having the same evidential value as the original under Article   23   §   2 of the Digital Administration Code. Moreover, if another party asserted that the documents were not true copies or did not take part in proceedings in the Court of Cassation, the applicant could still avoid the appeal being found inadmissible by filing the missing attestation that the documents were true copies, under Article   372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, up until a hearing of the case took place. 42 .     In judgment no.   8312 of 25 March 2019 the plenary Court of Cassation applied this new approach to the applicant’s failure to file with the registry an attestation that the certified email by which the respondent had served the contested judgment on him was a true copy of the original. The Court of Cassation held that Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure contained rules which referred to paper-based proceedings. Their application to the filing of hard copies of electronic documents meant that they had to be interpreted in the light of the right to a fair hearing, avoiding pointless formalism in assessing the admissibility of an appeal. The Court of Cassation found that, since the service of the contested judgment by certified email was carried out by another party, the principle of a fair trial meant that the court could not declare an appeal inadmissible when the other party had not asserted that the paper documents were not true copies of the electronic originals he himself or she herself had sent to the applicant. In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Cassation also referred to the existence of severe criminal and disciplinary sanctions that ensured the integrity of paper copies filed at court and thus ensured protection for the public interests pursued by Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 43 .     On the basis of the above, the Court of Cassation held that the submission of a paper copy of the contested judgment served by certified email together with the notice of service should not necessarily entail the inadmissibility of the appeal if the applicant failed to file an attestation that they were true copies of the electronic originals within the deadline set by Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal should only be declared inadmissible if the other party asserted that the documents were not true copies of the originals or did not take part in the proceedings in the Court of Cassation. In such cases, however, the applicant could still avoid a declaration of inadmissibility by filing the missing attestation under Article   372 of the Code of Civil Procedure, up until a hearing of the case. relevant international law materials 44 .     The relevant passages of Opinion no.   14   (2011) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) on justice and information technologies (IT) read as follows. “5. IT should be a tool or means to improve the administration of justice, to facilitate the user’s access to the courts and to reinforce the safeguards laid down in Article   6 ECHR: access to justice, impartiality, independence of the judge, fairness and reasonable duration of proceedings. ... 7. The Magna Carta of Judges entrusts judges with co-responsibility for access to swift, efficient and affordable dispute resolution. Judges must identify the advantages and disadvantages of IT and identify and eliminate any risks to the proper administration of justice. IT must not diminish parties’ procedural rights. Judges must be mindful of such risks as they are responsible for ensuring that parties’ rights are protected.” 45 .     In the Guidelines on electronic court filing (e-filing) and digitalisation of courts (CEPEJ (2021)15) the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) stated the following. “8. While legislation should provide for procedural uniformity and standardisation, it should also provide to a certain extent for flexibility to facilitate the various exceptions and specific use cases that might occur while transforming judicial procedures. ... 46. An e-filing system should also serve the needs of its users, providing the highest level of flexibility to both facilitate the creating and reading of e-documents and limit their administrative burdens (e.g., performing inconsistency checks, validating legal references, generating indexed PDF bundles of case materials in electronic form, etc.)”. 46 .     The relevant extracts from Opinion no.   26   (2023) of the CCJE on “Moving forward: the use of assistive technology in the judiciary” read as follows. “28. E-filing and proceedings are a basic prerequisite for the effective use of technology in judiciaries. They underpin judicial support systems. Such processes are used widely, whether as part of mixed systems (physical and e-files and procedures) or as part of e-only systems. They also include the use of digital, e-signatures or e-time stamps on documents and processes carried out electronically.   29. This technology can be used at all stages of proceedings. Proceedings can be initiated online through e-filing. Service can be effected electronically either through e-mail, a web-based application (App) or other forms of technology. Case tracking and management systems are facilitated through e-procedures and digital case management files. ... 91. The CCJE considers that the following principles should guide the future design, implementation and use of technology to support judges ... (iv) Judicial oversight: to maintain its consistency with judicial independence, impartiality and autonomy, judges whether through Councils of the Judiciary or otherwise, ought to be involved in the purchase, design and control of technology. They ought also to concur in its introduction and implementation. ... (v) Accessibility and quality: technology should enhance and improve effective and practical access to justice for all members of society. It ought to promote access to both adjudicative justice, consistently with article   6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as consensual settlement. Promoting accessibility necessarily requires technology to be of a high quality. Where access to technology is impractical, an appropriate equivalent alternative must be made available.” THE LAW jOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 47.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule   42   §   1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION 48.     Relying on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and, as to application no.   37943/17, also on Article   13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the decisions of the Court of Cassation to declare their appeals on points of law inadmissible for failure to comply with the formal requirements and time-limits set out in Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section   9 of Law no.   53/1994 amounted to excessive formalism and unjustifiably restricted their right of access to a court. 49.     The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility 50.     The Court notes that the applications are neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The applicants (a)    Application no.   37943/17 51.     The applicants in application no.   37943/17 complained that the interpretation of the relevant provisions by the Court of Cassation had been excessively formalistic and had prevented their appeal from being assessed on the merits. 52.     They acknowledged that the interference had been based on the law and on the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation, and that it had pursued a legitimate aim. However, they submitted that it had been disproportionate having regard to the serious consequences that the decision to declare their case inadmissible had had for their right of access to a court – preventing them from lodging a new appeal with the Court of Cassation – and to the fact that they had not been given a chance to remedy their procedural error by filing the missing notice of service at a later stage of the proceedings. (b)    Application no.   54009/18 53.     The applicant company in application no.   54009/18 submitted that the interference with its right of access to a court had been disproportionate. It complained that Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not establish an obligation to file an attestation that the paper copies filed were true copies of the original electronic documents, but only an obligation to submit a certified copy of the contested judgment and the relevant notice of service. It contested the interpretation of the Court of Cassation according to which such an obligation stemmed from the combination of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 9(1- bis ) and (1- ter ) of Law no.   53 of 1994. In the applicant company’s submission, the latter provision did not apply to the filing of the contested judgment served by other parties but only to documents which lawyers could download from the electronic case file of the registry of national courts. 54.     The applicant company also submitted that the same Court of Cassation had reconsidered the rigid interpretation of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure which had led to its appeal being declared inadmissible; it relied on judgment no.   8312 of 2019 of the plenary Court of Cassation (see paragraph   42 above). (c)    Application no.   20655/19 55 .     The applicants in application no.   20655/19 complained that the obligation to file with the Court of Cassation an attestation that a certified email was a true copy of its original did not pursue any legitimate aim. It only constituted an attempt to adapt procedural rules made in the context of paper ‑ based proceedings to the transitional situation in the Court of Cassation, where the submission of electronic documents had not yet been implemented. 56.     The applicants also submitted that the declaration that their appeal was inadmissible had amounted to excessive formalism, in breach of their right of access to a court. They complained that the restrictive interpretation of Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure – which the Court of Cassation had maintained from 14   July 2017 to 24   September 2018 (see paragraphs   37 and 40) – had not existed at the time they had lodged their appeal. The contested rule had therefore not been foreseeable to them. 57.     They further submitted that the arguments put forward by the Government in their attempt to justify the interference were the very same arguments that the Court of Cassation itself had meanwhile abandoned in the above-mentioned judgment no.   8312 of 2019 (see paragraph 42 above) and subsequent case-law. 58.     They argued that they had filed with the registry a copy of the contested judgment together with an attestation that it was a true copy and that the Court of Cassation had declared their appeal inadmissible on the basis of the absence of such an attestation only in relation to the notice of service. They further submitted that the other parties had not disputed the date of service. As to the Government’s claim that the applicants had not tried to remedy their procedural error by filing an attestation that the notice of service was a true copy even at a later stage of proceedings, the applicants argued that the Court of Cassation had declared their appeal inadmissible without giving them any real opportunity to submit the missing document. The Government 59.     The Government submitted that the procedural rules at issue had pursued the aim of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice. They relied on Walchli v.   France (no.   35787/03, §   29, 26   July 2007),   Cañete   de Goñi v.   Spain (no.   55782/00, §   36, ECHR 2002-VIII) and Miragall Escolano and Others v.   Spain (nos.   38366/97 and 9 others, §   36, ECHR 2000-I). 60 .     In the Government’s view, requiring applicants to file a certified copy of the contested judgment with the Court of Cassation together with the notice of service within the deadline set out in Article   369 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instrumental in enabling the court to check that the appeal had been lodged with the time-limit and in upholding the principle of res judicata . Moreover, since it allowed the Court of Cassation to decide whether the appeal was admissible without taking any further steps and without delay, it ensured the expeditious conduct of the proceedings. 61 .     As to the requirement to submit an attestation that the paper copies were true copies of the original electronic documents served by certified email, the Government argued that the rule pursued the same aims as those referred to above, while at the same time ensuring a smooth transition from paper to electronic proceedings and the integrity of documentation filed with the Court of Cassation. According to them, requiring a specific attestation that the documents were true copies avoided possible abuse, engaging lawyers’ criminal responsibility. 62 .     As to the proportionality of the procedural requirements, the Government submitted that the relevant domestic law and the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation expressly set out the rules at issue. They had a solid legal basis, with clear wording and a foreseeable application. The Government also stressed that, in the Italian legal system, lawyers registered with the supreme courts Bar had to comply with special requirements of professionalism and expertise. Moreover, the procedural formalities were not excessively burdensome, having regard to the fact that the Court of Cassation carried out a review of last resort limited to issues of legality. 63.     As to the developments in case-law in which the Court of Cassation had reconsidered some of the principles applied in the present case, the Government argued that even under the new interpretation the applicants’ appeals would still have been declared inadmissible. 64.     In relation to application no.   37943/17, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to file the notice of service of the contested judgment within the deadline set out in Article