Commentary on Judgment No. 17005 of 2024: Omission of Examination and Relevance of Decisive Facts

The recent ruling No. 17005 of June 20, 2024, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. R. M. Di Virgilio and reporting judge Dr. G. Fortunato, offers an important reflection on the omission of examination of a decisive fact, a topic of great relevance in the Italian legal landscape. In this article, we aim to analyze the principles outlined in the judgment, providing useful clarifications for understanding the regulatory and jurisprudential context.

The Regulatory Context

Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, reformulated by Law Decree No. 83 of 2012, introduces a specific defect that can be reported in a cassation appeal. This defect refers to the omission of examination of a historical fact, whether primary or secondary, that emerges from the records and that has been the subject of discussion between the parties. The Court, in this ruling, reiterates that for an omission of examination to be established, the fact in question must have a decisive character, meaning that if examined, it could have led to a different outcome in the dispute.

Cassation appeal - Reason under art. 360, no. 5, c.p.c. reformulated by law decree no. 83 of 2012 - Omission of examination - Relevance - Conditions. Art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 5, c.p.c., reformulated by art. 54 of law decree no. 83 of 2012, converted into law no. 134 of 2012, introduces into the legal system a specific defect that can be reported for cassation, relating to the omission of examination of a historical fact, primary or secondary, whose existence is evident from the text of the judgment or from the procedural documents, which has been the subject of discussion between the parties and has a decisive character (that is, if examined, would have led to a different outcome in the dispute); therefore, the omission of examination of evidential elements does not, in itself, constitute the defect of omission of examination of a decisive fact if the historical fact, relevant to the case, has been taken into account by the judge, even if the judgment did not account for all the evidential findings.

Analysis of the Judgment

In the judgment in question, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of B. against Z., highlighting that the omission of examination of evidential elements does not automatically configure a defect of omission of examination of a decisive fact. This aspect is fundamental, as it clarifies that even if the judge did not analyze every single evidential element, this does not necessarily imply a procedural error if the relevant facts have been considered.

  • Relevance of the fact: it must be decisive for the outcome of the case.
  • Consideration by the judge: the fact must have been the subject of evaluation, even if not exhaustively.
  • Impact on the decision: the lack of examination must have played a decisive role in determining the dispute.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17005 of 2024 represents an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence regarding the defect of omission of examination. It clarifies that not all defects in evidential evaluation lead to the acceptance of the appeal. The Court, reiterating the importance of the relevance and consideration of historical facts, provides a useful interpretative tool for lawyers and judges. It is therefore essential that the parties present the facts and evidence clearly and precisely, as their relevance can significantly influence the outcome of the dispute.

Bianucci Law Firm