Commentary on Judgment No. 20633 of 2024: Just Satisfaction and Unreasonable Length of Proceedings

Judgment No. 20633 of July 24, 2024, represents an important step forward in the protection of citizens' rights regarding the timing of justice. This ruling by the Court of Cassation addressed a case of just satisfaction for the unreasonable length of proceedings, a matter of crucial relevance in the Italian and European legal context. The Court established that, in the case of a partial acceptance of the compensation claim, the petitioner must choose between notifying the liquidation decree or opposing it to obtain recognition of the unaccepted claims.

The Context of the Judgment

The central issue of the judgment concerns the right to just satisfaction provided by Law No. 89 of 2001, also known as the Pinto Law. This law allows citizens to request compensation in cases of unreasonable length of proceedings. However, the judgment clarifies that if the awarded sum is lower than that requested, the petitioner faces a dilemma. They must decide whether to accept the proposed sum, risking the rejection of the unaccepted claims, or to oppose, keeping open the possibility of claiming what has not been recognized.

The Implications of the Decision

The ruling's maxim states:

Request for just satisfaction for unreasonable length of proceedings - Partial acceptance - Consequences. Regarding just satisfaction, if the decree for the compensation for unreasonable length of proceedings is issued for an amount lower than that requested, the petitioner faces the alternative of notifying it, thereby acquiescing to the partial rejection of the claim, or opposing under Article 5-ter of Law No. 89 of 2001, to obtain recognition of the unaccepted claims, without proceeding, in that case, with the notification of the appeal and the decree - which would render the opposition inadmissible - and rather having to deposit the act of opposition within the term under Article 5-ter, paragraph 1, of the cited law.
  • The petitioner may choose to notify the decree, accepting the partial compensation.
  • Alternatively, they may decide to oppose to obtain recognition of the unaccepted claims, following specific procedures.
  • The choice to oppose requires caution, as notifying the appeal would render the opposition inadmissible.

This judgment is fundamental because it clarifies the procedures and choices available for those in a situation of partial acceptance of the just satisfaction claim. It provides citizens with a clear framework on how to proceed and the risks associated with each option.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 20633 of 2024 offers us an important reflection on the protection of citizens' rights in the field of justice. It emphasizes the need for careful management of just satisfaction claims and legal procedures, so that the rights of those who suffer delays in justice are always respected. This ruling not only clarifies the responsibilities and possibilities for petitioners but also highlights the importance of a judicial system that respects fundamental rights, in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Bianucci Law Firm