Commentary on Ordinance No. 16039 of 2024: Fair Compensation and Revocation Proceedings

The recent Ordinance No. 16039 of June 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights regarding fair compensation in the context of revocation proceedings. This decision is part of an important legal debate concerning the reasonable duration of trials, a principle established by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Regulatory Context

According to the ordinance in question, the right to fair compensation, provided for by Law No. 89 of 2001, cannot be automatically recognized. In fact, it is necessary for the requesting party to submit a request for a decision using the expedited remedy provided by Article 281-sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure. This article, applicable by virtue of Article 352, paragraph 6, of the c.p.c., emphasizes the importance of active and collaborative behavior on the part of the parties involved in the process.

Fair compensation in revocation proceedings against the appeal judgment - Preconditions - Proposal of the expedited remedy referred to in Article 281-sexies c.p.c., applicable pursuant to Article 352, paragraph 6, c.p.c. ratione temporis in force - Methods - Notion as per Constitutional Court No. 121 of 2021. Regarding fair compensation for unreasonable length of the revocation proceedings against the appeal judgment, there is no right to compensation if a request for a decision is not made following an oral discussion pursuant to Article 281-sexies c.p.c. - applicable by virtue of the last paragraph of Article 352 c.p.c. ratione temporis in force and constituting a preventive remedy pursuant to Article 1-ter, paragraph 1, of Law No. 89 of 2001 - requiring the party, as clarified by the Constitutional Court in ruling No. 121 of 2020, to exhibit collaborative behavior with the judge, demonstrating their willingness to transition to a simplified procedure or a concentrated decision-making model, in time potentially useful to avoid exceeding the reasonable duration of the process, with the judge retaining the authority to verify the usability of the different decision-making model.

Collaborative Behavior and Responsibility of the Parties

A crucial aspect highlighted by the ordinance is the necessity of collaborative behavior on the part of the parties involved in the process. The Constitutional Court, in ruling No. 121 of 2020, clarified that it is essential for the parties to express their willingness to switch to a simplified procedure or a concentrated decision-making model. This approach not only facilitates the management of the process but also helps to avoid situations of unreasonable length of proceedings.

  • Timely submission of the request for a decision
  • Active collaboration with the judge
  • Willingness to modify the process model

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 16039 of 2024 represents an important step towards a more efficient judicial system that respects the rights of the parties. It clarifies that the right to fair compensation is not automatic but requires active engagement from those involved in revocation proceedings. Collaboration with the judge thus proves essential to ensuring the reasonable duration of trials, a principle that not only protects citizens' rights but also supports the overall efficiency of the legal system.

Bianucci Law Firm