Order No. 11057 of 2024: The Revocation in Matters of Just Satisfaction for Unreasonable Length of Proceedings

The recent order no. 11057 of April 24, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Perugia, provides important clarifications on the methods of appeal regarding just satisfaction for unreasonable length of proceedings. This issue is of fundamental importance for all parties involved in legal proceedings that extend beyond a reasonable timeframe, ensuring the respect of rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Regulatory and Legal Context

Law No. 89 of 2001, known as the Pinto Law, governs the procedures for requesting just satisfaction for excessive duration of proceedings. In particular, Article 5-ter establishes the procedures for opposing decrees issued in this regard. The judgment under examination clarifies that the request for revocation, pursuant to Article 395, paragraph 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be submitted to the Court of Appeal.

Generally. In matters of just satisfaction for unreasonable length of proceedings, against the decree issued by the delegated magistrate of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 4, Law No. 89 of 2001, as well as against the decree that ruled on the opposition under Article 5-ter of the same Law No. 89 of 2001, the request for revocation must be proposed before the Court of Appeal, and against the ruling on the revocation, issued by the Court of Appeal, a cassation appeal must be made.

This principle emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the competent forum, a crucial aspect that can influence the outcome of the case. The Court, therefore, reiterated that revocation is not a remedy available in all jurisdictions but must follow a well-defined process.

The Practical Implications of the Judgment

The practical consequences of this order are manifold:

  • Clear definition of the terms and procedures to be followed for appeal.
  • Strengthening of the protection of citizens' rights against bureaucratic delays.
  • Clarity regarding the competence of the Court of Appeal in handling requests for revocation.

Lawyers and legal professionals must be aware of these indications to assist their clients effectively and ensure that their rights are adequately protected.

Conclusions

In summary, order no. 11057 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of citizens' rights concerning just satisfaction for unreasonable length of proceedings. It clarifies the methods of appeal and revocation, providing legal professionals with useful tools to tackle complex situations. Staying updated on such rulings is essential to ensure high-quality and effective legal counsel.

Bianucci Law Firm