If the letter is no longer safe ...?

The disturbing signal that comes from a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court goes in the direction indicated in the title: the very well known registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt does not suffice to prove that a given document is actually actually reached its destination.
The thing is certainly upsetting for all those who use registered mail to obtain documentary evidence of a correspondence exchanged, however, in hindsight the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court can not be considered acceptable.

The mere receipt of the return postcard (technically defined acknowledgment of receipt) can not in any way constitute a proof of the fact that the content of the letter has been received in the availability of the recipient. The addressee of a letter, in fact, receives a sealed envelope from the postman and sign the return postcard without having previously opened the envelope, as postmen often do not deliver the letter if it is not first signed acknowledgment of receipt.

But in any event, notice that bounces is only proof that the envelope was received by letter, but could not in any way prove anything about its content. This may be a blank envelope, as well as it could be an envelope containing a document absolutely different.
In the case cited above, issued by the sect. III of the Court of Civil Cassation, 12 May 2005, n. 10021, the Court ruled in a case involving the sale of credit which to be effective must be notified to the debtor.

What does it mean to notify? It means to send a notice in the sphere of knowability of the recipient, in accordance with the provisions of Article. 1335 of the Civil Code. But when you can say that an act is entered into the sphere of knowability of the recipient? In the case brought to the attention of the Court the creditor had notified the sale of its credit to the debtor by means of a registered letter that the debtor has always denied having received. In this case, the Supreme Court denied that such notification could be considered properly carried out by stating

"The letter, in fact, could have any content, even totally unrelated to the sale, or could have none, even for simple misunderstanding shipping still possible. The rest (...) the envelope of the letter could be devoid of content or, instead, have a content irrelevant and that, therefore, do not require to be preserved.
Devesi therefore affirm the principle that the mere receipt of the registered cover by the recipient does not constitute proof of the contents of this principle and it will conform to the referring court. "

Elaborating on this principle, the Supreme Court overturned his other previous convictions, according to which, in the face of service of a document by the postal service

"The recipient of a notice of receipt that states that he never received the document and, in particular, that he never affixed their signatures on notice of receipt, has the burden, if you intend to contest the successful execution of the notification of challenging the acknowledgment of receipt by means of an action for fraud '(Court of Cassation nos. 3065/2003 and 1783/2001).

At this point those who want to obtain proof of service of a given document to a recipient who would not have two paths: a notification by a bailiff and electronic notification via certified mail.
The first way allows you to have the certainty that the act has reached its destination because there will be a public official to certify that the act is actually packed what you wanted to be notified. In addition, the original of the document served returns to the availability of the sender so that will have the proof of service.
Needless to say the service by bailiff is a practice very expensive and totally uneconomic for all those who have the need to send a frequent correspondence that you must possess proof.
The other way is the use of a notification system electronics, absolutely free, and able to pre-establish proof of correspondence and the content of the same. We refer to the certified mail.

Mr. Marcello Pirani - legal@anti-phishing.it