Commentary on Sentence No. 19716 of 2024: Administrative Sanctions and the Powers of the Judge

Sentence No. 19716 of July 17, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on the discretionary powers of the judge in the context of administrative sanctions for violations of the Consolidated Banking Law (TUB) and the Consolidated Finance Law (TUF). This judgment clarifies the modalities of opposition regarding the amount of the sanctions and establishes fundamental principles for their application.

The Context of the Sentence

In the case at hand, the appellant S. (S. S.) opposed an administrative sanction imposed for violation of the rules set forth by the TUB and the TUF. The Court confirmed the discretionary power of the judge to quantify the sanction, emphasizing that this can occur within the limits established by law. Of fundamental importance is the consideration of the actual severity of the fact, which must be evaluated by considering both objective and subjective aspects.

AMOUNT: MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM LIMIT Opposition concerning the amount of the administrative pecuniary sanction for violation of the TUB (Legislative Decree No. 117 of 1985) or the TUF (Legislative Decree No. 58 of 1998) - Powers of the judge - Content and Purpose - Reviewability in Cassation - Exclusion - Conditions. In the opposition procedure concerning the amount of the administrative pecuniary sanction imposed for violation of the TUB or the TUF, the judge has the discretionary power to quantify the amount of the sanction within the established limits, in order to match it to the actual severity of the concrete fact, deriving it globally from its objective and subjective elements and without being required to specify the criteria followed, it being excluded that his ruling can be criticized in terms of legitimacy provided those limits have been respected and from the reasoning it emerges that, in determining the sanction, the parameters set forth in Article 11 of Law No. 689 of 1981 have been taken into account.

The Implications of the Decision

The Court established that the judge's discretion is not only legitimate but necessary to ensure that the sanction is proportionate to the violation. This principle is of great relevance as it helps to prevent excessive sanctions from being imposed in situations where the severity of the violation would not justify such measures. Furthermore, the absence of an obligation for detailed reasoning on the criteria used for quantifying the sanction offers greater flexibility to the judge.

  • Judge's discretion: fundamental for the proportionality of the sanction.
  • Respecting the limits established by law.
  • Assessment of the severity of the violation: objective and subjective elements.

Conclusions

Sentence No. 19716 of 2024 fits into a legal context of increasing attention towards the proportionality of administrative sanctions. It confirms the importance of the judge's discretionary power in the application of the TUB and TUF regulations, while safeguarding the rights of the sanctioned parties. In an era where administrative justice is often at the center of public debates, this decision represents a step forward towards a fairer and more just system, where sanctions are commensurate with the actual severity of the facts.

Bianucci Law Firm