Commentary on Ordinance No. 20013 of 2024: Revocation in the Rulings of the Court of Cassation

The recent Ordinance No. 20013 of July 19, 2024, issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the issue of revocation of rulings. This provision clarifies the necessary requirements for an error to be considered relevant according to Article 395, No. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.). In this article, we will analyze the main points of the ruling and the implications it has for future appeals.

The requirements for the revocation of rulings

The Court has established that the relevant error, pursuant to Article 395, No. 4, c.p.c., must meet specific requirements:

  • It must consist of an erroneous perception of the facts of the case.
  • It cannot concern interpretative and evaluative activities.
  • It must possess characteristics of absolute evidence and immediate detectability.
  • It must be essential and decisive for the ruling.
  • It must only concern the internal acts of the cassation judgment.

In particular, the Court emphasized that the error must be of such obviousness that it can only be identified through a comparison between the contested ruling and the acts of the case. This implies that the appellant cannot simply complain about an omitted examination of reasons already presented, as occurred in this specific case, but must demonstrate a perceptual factual error.

The specificity of the factual error

In general. Regarding the revocation of rulings by the Court of Cassation, the relevant error pursuant to Article 395, No. 4, c.p.c.: a) consists of an erroneous perception of the facts of the case that has led to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of a fact, the truth of which is undeniably excluded or established by the acts of the case (provided that the fact subject to the alleged error has not been a subject of discussion between the parties); b) cannot concern interpretative and evaluative activities; c) must possess the characteristics of absolute evidence and immediate detectability based solely on the comparison between the contested ruling and the acts of the case; d) must be essential and decisive; e) must only concern the internal acts of the cassation judgment and solely impact the ruling of the Court. (In this case, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the ground for appeal in which the appellant, far from highlighting a perceptual factual error, complained about an omitted examination of the reasons outlined in the introductory appeal, thus soliciting a renewed judgment on the disregarded reasons for the cassation appeal).

The Court, in the case at hand, declared inadmissible the ground for appeal presented by the appellant, who failed to highlight a perceptual factual error and merely indicated an omitted examination of reasons already stated. This serves to reiterate that revocation cannot be used as an additional level of judgment, but must strictly adhere to the aforementioned requirements.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 20013 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the strict interpretation that the Court of Cassation has adopted regarding the revocation of rulings. Lawyers and legal professionals must pay particular attention to these requirements when evaluating the possibility of a revocation appeal, as failure to comply with the conditions set by the Court could lead to the inadmissibility of the appeal itself. This not only highlights the importance of precision in legal proceedings but also the necessity for a thorough analysis of the facts of the case before undertaking any legal action.

Bianucci Law Firm