Damages and Civil Liability: Commentary on Judgment No. 18217/2023

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 18217 of June 26, 2023, serves as an important reference point for jurisprudence on civil liability and damages, particularly in cases of defamation through the press. The case began with the publication of an article in a well-known newspaper, in which geologist A.A. was unjustly associated with a mafia investigation, causing significant damage to his reputation and career.

The A.A. Case and its Legal Implications

The appellant, A.A., saw his public image compromised due to an article that erroneously identified him as being under investigation for external association with a mafia organization. The Court of Appeal of Catania, while acknowledging the liability of Gruppo Editoriale Gedi for non-pecuniary damage, reduced the compensation amount from 50,000 to 10,000 euros, excluding pecuniary damage. This decision prompted A.A. to appeal to the Court of Cassation, highlighting the need for a correct assessment of the damages suffered.

The Court of Cassation emphasized the importance of considering all elements that can affect the quantification of damages, particularly concerning the severity of the defamation and its dissemination.

Assessment of Non-Pecuniary Damage

The Court of Cassation upheld A.A.'s grounds for appeal, pointing out that the Court of Appeal had not correctly applied the criteria set forth by the Milanese tables for the liquidation of non-pecuniary damage. A series of factors, such as the notoriety of the defamed person and the gravity of the news, must be considered in the final assessment. In this context, the Court of Cassation clarified that it is not sufficient to consider the error as unintentional and episodic, but it is necessary to analyze its impact on the victim's professional and personal life.

Conclusions and Future Prospects

The decision of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in protecting citizens' rights against defamation through the press. It establishes that the assessment of damages must be realistic and proportionate to the severity of the offense. The issue of pecuniary damage, excluded by the Court of Appeal, remains open and will be subject to further evaluation, with a referral for a new examination. This case underscores the importance of accurate and responsible reporting, so that similar incidents do not occur in the future.