The ruling no. 10920 of 2024: Equitable compensation and presumption of non-prejudice in default

The recent order no. 10920 of April 23, 2024, has generated considerable interest in the field of procedural law and equitable compensation for unreasonable duration of proceedings. This provision of the Court of Cassation specifically addresses the issue of the default of the parties and the presumption of non-prejudice, clarifying some fundamental aspects of current legislation.

Default and presumption of non-prejudice

According to law no. 89 of 2001, which regulates equitable compensation for the unreasonable duration of proceedings, in the case of default by a party, there is a presumption iuris tantum of non-prejudice. This means that, in the absence of active intervention by the involved party, it is presumed that there has been no damage arising from the length of the proceedings.

Equitable compensation - Art. 2, paragraph 2-sexies, letter b), law no. 89 of 2001 - Default - Presumption iuris tantum of non-prejudice - Contra-evidence of the existence of mental distress - Admissibility. In the case of a party's default, the presumption iuris tantum of non-prejudice due to unreasonable duration of the process, - provided for by art. 2, paragraph 2-sexies, letter b), of law no. 89 of 2001 - may be overcome by contra-evidence relating to the existence of prejudice caused by the mental distress arising from awareness of the proceedings, which correlates with the interest in its swift conclusion.

Contra-evidence and mental distress

The Court clarified that, despite the presumption of non-prejudice, it is possible to overcome it through the presentation of contra-evidence. In particular, the appellant may demonstrate the existence of a concrete prejudice arising from the mental distress caused by awareness of the duration of the proceedings. This aspect is crucial, as it allows for the protection of the rights of the party who, although not having actively participated in the proceedings, has nonetheless suffered psychological and moral damage.

In this sense, the possibility of proving prejudice, even in the case of default, represents a guarantee for the right to defense and justice, fundamental elements enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Conclusions

The ruling no. 10920 of 2024 introduces an important reflection on the protection of the rights of parties in the case of default. It not only reaffirms the presumption of non-prejudice but also paves the way for greater attention to contra-evidence. This balance between procedural needs and the protection of individual rights is essential to ensure a fair and just trial, in line with the principles of European and national jurisprudence.

Bianucci Law Firm