Legal Aid and Financial Burdens: The Court of Cassation Clarifies Limits with Ruling no. 18187/2025

The Italian legal system recognizes everyone's right to sue and defend themselves in court, even those who lack the necessary financial means. To this end, legal aid (patrocinio a spese dello Stato) has been established, a fundamental institution that guarantees access to justice for the less fortunate. However, the application of this benefit can sometimes raise complex questions, especially when both parties in a lawsuit are admitted to such aid. The Court of Cassation, with its recent ruling no. 18187 of May 14, 2025, has provided essential clarification regarding the award of legal costs in such a delicate context, addressing the case of a defendant and a civil party both admitted to state legal aid.

The Principle of Losing Party Pays and Legal Aid: The Case in Question

The issue brought to the attention of the Supreme Court concerned a criminal proceeding in which the defendant, Mr. N. S., had been ordered to pay damages to the civil party. Both parties, however, benefited from legal aid. The first-instance court had also ordered the defendant to pay the legal costs incurred by the civil party. The defendant's defense had raised doubts about the legitimacy of this order, arguing that since both parties were admitted to state legal aid, the costs should have remained entirely borne by the state treasury, with no possibility of recourse against the defendant.

In matters of legal aid, the defendant admitted to the benefit, in the event of an order to pay damages to the civil party also admitted to the same benefit, must also be ordered to reimburse, in favor of the state treasury, the legal costs incurred by the latter, as these cannot remain a charge on the State. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the provisions of art. 110, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree of May 30, 2002, no. 115, and the general principle of the losing party paying costs, established by art. 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apply).

This ruling by the Court of Cassation is of fundamental importance because it establishes a clear principle: even if the defendant is admitted to legal aid, if ordered to pay damages to the civil party (also admitted to legal aid), they cannot escape the obligation to reimburse the legal costs incurred by the civil party, but this reimbursement must be made in favor of the State, not directly to the civil party. In other words, the State, which has advanced the costs for the successful civil party, has the right to recover them from the losing defendant, even if the latter is also admitted to the benefit. The logic is simple but powerful: the principle of the losing party paying costs, according to which whoever loses the case pays the expenses, does not cease to apply. What changes is the recipient of the payment, which becomes the state treasury.

The Court's Reasoning: Balance Between Right to Defense and Protection of the Treasury

The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. V. and with Dr. G. N. as rapporteur, rejected the defendant's appeal, confirming the order to pay costs. The decision is based on a careful interpretation of the regulations governing legal aid and the general principle of the losing party paying costs. In particular, the Court referred to two normative pillars:

• Article 110, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree of May 30, 2002, no. 115 (Consolidated Text of Legislative and Regulatory Provisions on Justice Costs): This provision states that if the party admitted to legal aid loses the case, they cannot be ordered to reimburse costs to the other party not admitted. However, in the case at hand, both parties were admitted. The Court of Cassation interpreted the provision to mean that the state treasury, having advanced the costs for the successful civil party, has the right to recover them from the losing party, even if the latter is admitted to legal aid.
• Article 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This article enshrines the principle of the losing party paying costs, according to which the judge, with the ruling that convicts the defendant, also charges them with the legal costs incurred by the civil party. This principle is universal and is not waived by the mere admission of both parties to state legal aid. The defendant's order to reimburse costs, in this specific context, serves to protect the state treasury, preventing the cost of justice for the successful civil party from unduly burdening the community, despite the defendant's conviction.

The Court thus reiterated that admission to legal aid does not exempt the losing party, ordered to pay damages, from bearing the legal costs, but simply shifts the beneficiary of the reimbursement from the other party to the state treasury. This mechanism ensures a balance between the right to defense and the need not to unduly burden public finances.

Practical Implications and Jurisprudential Precedents

This ruling has significant practical implications. For defendants admitted to state legal aid, it means that an order to pay damages to a civil party also admitted to the benefit will still entail a financial burden for legal costs, albeit in favor of the State. For civil parties, the ruling confirms that, even if benefiting from legal aid, in case of victory, they will have the certainty that the costs advanced by the state treasury will be recovered from the losing party, strengthening trust in the justice system. The Court cited several consistent previous rulings, such as no. 33630 of 2022 and no. 48907 of 2016, demonstrating the solidity of this jurisprudential trend, which also has its roots in decisions of the United Sections (no. 5464 of 2020).

Conclusions: A Necessary Balance Between the Right to Defense and System Sustainability

Ruling no. 18187/2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the landscape of procedural law and legal aid. It reaffirms the principle of the losing party paying costs as a cornerstone of our legal system, even in seemingly complex situations where both parties benefit from state legal assistance. The decision underscores the need to balance the right of access to justice for all with the imperative to protect public resources. Ultimately, whoever commits a wrongful act and is ordered to pay damages, even if not affluent, must still contribute to the costs of justice, for the benefit of the State that guaranteed the defense to the injured party. This principle strengthens individual responsibility and the sustainability of the judicial system as a whole.