Compensation and Reinstatement of Terms: Analysis of Ordinance No. 19395 of 2024

The Ordinance No. 19395 of July 15, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addressed a highly relevant issue in civil law: the admissibility of the compensation exception based on a constitutive fact that occurred after the expiration of the assertive preclusions. This decision provides important insights regarding the protection of parties in the process and the importance of reinstatement of terms.

The Context of the Ruling

The central issue concerns a compensation exception raised by F. against M., in the context of the extinction of the obligation. The Court established that, if a constitutive fact occurs after the deadline for raising exceptions, such an exception may be admitted, provided that it is preceded by a reasoned request for reinstatement of terms, pursuant to Article 153, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.).

Maxim and Interpretation

In general. The compensation exception, based on a constitutive fact occurring after the expiration of the assertive preclusions, is admissible, and may be evaluated by the judge, only if it is raised following a reasoned application of the general institution of reinstatement of terms ex Article 153, paragraph 2, c.p.c., aimed at safeguarding constitutional principles regarding defensive guarantees and due process.

This maxim highlights the necessity of ensuring a fair trial, protecting the defensive guarantees of the parties. The compensation exception can be a useful tool for the debtor, but it must be exercised in compliance with procedural rules. The importance of reinstatement of terms is crucial: it allows the recovery of rights otherwise barred, ensuring that parties can assert their reasons even in difficult situations.

The Implications of the Ruling

The implications of this ruling are multiple and concern various aspects of civil law:

  • Reaffirmation of the right to defense: The recognition of the possibility to raise exceptions even after the established deadlines, albeit with a reasoned request, reiterates the importance of the right to defense in the process.
  • Clarity on procedural terms: The ruling provides clear guidance on how to manage compensation exceptions, improving the predictability of judicial decisions.
  • Protection of the rights of the parties: The reinstatement of terms is a useful tool to ensure that no party is unjustly penalized for unforeseen circumstances.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 19395 of 2024 represents a significant step in the protection of defensive guarantees in Italian civil law. The possibility of raising compensation exceptions even after the established deadlines, following a reasoned reinstatement of terms, not only strengthens the principle of due process but also offers greater flexibility to the parties involved in a dispute. This jurisprudential orientation invites reflection on the importance of balancing the certainty of law with the necessity of ensuring access to justice for all.

Bianucci Law Firm