Judgment No. 16669 of 14/06/2024: Confession and Unfavorable Facts in Civil Law

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 16669 of June 14, 2024, offers important food for thought regarding confession in civil law, particularly on the concept of "unfavorable fact" and its applicability in obligatory relationships. The decision is part of a complex legal context, where unilateral declarations take on different values depending on their nature and the subject involved.

The Concept of Confession and Unfavorable Facts

The Court has established that, for the purpose of attributing confessional value to a declaration, "unfavorable fact" means the contested fact that harms a legal interest asserted by the confessor towards the procedural counterparty. In other words, only declarations that harm the legal interests of the declarant can be considered as confession.

In the case at hand, bank guarantors had admitted to being debtors of a company in favor of which they had granted a mortgage on their assets. However, the Court excluded the confessional validity of these declarations, as they did not fall within the limits established by the principle of "unfavorable fact." This highlights the importance of understanding the context in which a confession is made and its impact on legal relationships.

Reflections on the Judgment

In general. For the purpose of attributing confessional value to a declaration, "unfavorable fact" to the party making it must be understood as the contested fact that harms a legal interest asserted by the confessor towards the procedural counterparty, which at the same time benefits the latter, within the sole obligatory relationship between them, as the legal system does not tolerate that someone may negatively affect another's legal sphere with their own unilateral declaration, except in cases of subjection expressly provided for by law. (In the specific case, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court's judgment which had excluded the confessional validity, towards a bank, of the declarations with which its guarantors had admitted to being debtors of a company, in favor of which they had granted a mortgage on their assets, different from the principal debtor of the same bank, within the scope of a proceeding initiated by the latter aimed at ascertaining the nullity of the mortgage due to the non-existence of the guaranteed credit).

This judgment draws attention to the importance of considering the context and the relationships between the parties involved in a confession. The Court reiterated that it is not possible for a person to compromise another's legal position through unilateral declarations, except in cases expressly provided for by law. This principle is fundamental to ensuring fairness and justice in obligatory relationships.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16669 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding confession in civil law. It clarifies the limits within which a declaration can be considered a confession and emphasizes the importance of the concept of "unfavorable fact." This invites us to reflect on how declarations made in a legal context can influence the rights of the parties involved and the balance of legal relationships.