Judicial Administrator's Compensation: Commentary on Order No. 20975 of 2024

Judgment No. 20975 of July 26, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in the Italian legal landscape: the calculation of compensation for the judicial administrator of assets subject to preventive seizure. This ruling is crucial, especially considering recent legislative changes affecting the matter.

The Regulatory Context and the Issue of the Regulatory Gap

The Court was called upon to resolve a situation characterized by a regulatory gap. This occurred following the repeal of Article 2-octies of Law No. 575 of 1965, which took effect through Article 120 of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011, before the entry into force of the professional tariff approved by Presidential Decree No. 177 of 2015. The central question is whether, in this context, the repealed tariffs under Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 could be applied.

The Court clarified that these tariffs are no longer applicable, not even as a reference parameter, emphasizing the need for an equitable assessment. This aspect is fundamental because it highlights the importance of considering the specificity of the assignment and the public nature of the function performed by the judicial administrator.

The Ruling's Headnote

Assets subject to preventive seizure - Judicial administrator - Compensation calculation - Abolition of Article 2-octies of Law No. 575/1965 at the time of termination of the assignment - Regulatory gap - Applicability of repealed tariffs under Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 - Exclusion - Equitable criterion - Necessity - Parameters. Regarding the calculation of compensation due to the judicial administrator of assets subject to criminal preventive seizure, where the assignment terminated after the abolition of Article 2-octies of Law No. 575 of 1965 (due to Article 120 of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011) and before the entry into force of the professional tariff approved, pursuant to Article 8 of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2010, by Presidential Decree No. 177 of 2015, the repealed professional tariff for chartered accountants under Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 is no longer applicable, not even as a reference parameter. In the presence of a regulatory gap, it is necessary to proceed with an equitable assessment, taking into account the activity performed, the public nature of the assignment, and the compensatory nature of the remuneration.

Implications and Final Considerations

This judgment has numerous practical implications. Firstly, it highlights the importance of an equitable approach in calculating compensation, which considers not only the activity performed but also the nature of the public service rendered. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for legislative interventions to fill regulatory gaps, thereby ensuring greater legal certainty for operators in the sector.

In conclusion, the Court of Cassation has established a fundamental principle that could influence future decisions regarding the calculation of compensation for judicial administrators. It is desirable that the legislator intervenes to clarify and precisely define the compensation methods, so that similar situations can be avoided in the future.