Commentary on Judgment No. 525 of 2025: The Judge's Power and Civil Evidence

Judgment No. 525 of January 9, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, serves as an important reference point for understanding the judge's power to request information from public administration, particularly in disputes concerning compensation for damages. In this article, we will examine the implications of the decision and how it fits into the current legal context.

The Judge's Power under Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court of Cassation has established that the failure to exercise the power under Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to review by the Court of Cassation only under specific conditions. In particular, it is necessary that:

• There has been a request from the interested party.
• The judge's refusal has been reasoned.
• The judicial order is the only way to obtain information from the public administration.

Power under Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Failure to exercise - Reviewability under Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure - Conditions - Case facts. The failure to exercise the judge's power under Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reviewable by the Court of Cassation, under Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, only if there has been a request from a party, if the refusal has been reasoned, and if the judicial order is the only means to obtain information held by the public administration. (In this case, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning compensation for damages from blood transfusions, quashed with referral the judgment that had denied the existence of the prerequisites under Article 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure without indicating the source that would have allowed the Ministry of Health to request from the Region the documentation suitable for proving the sums received by the plaintiff as compensation under Law No. 210 of 1992).

Implications of the Judgment

This decision by the Court of Cassation has significant repercussions for civil procedural law and the right to compensation for damages. In particular, in the case examined, concerning compensation for damages from blood transfusions, the Court emphasized the importance of transparency and access to information. This means that, in situations where the judge has the power to request data from public administration, it is crucial that this power is exercised appropriately and with reasoned justification.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 525 of 2025 represents a step forward in the protection of citizens' rights, highlighting the need for judicial action that guarantees access to information vital for the decision-making process. The Court of Cassation has drawn attention to the duties of the judge and the legitimate expectations of the parties involved, establishing a precedent that may influence future disputes concerning compensation for damages and, more generally, the relationship between the judiciary and public administration.