Compensation of the Judicial Administrator: Commentary on Ordinance No. 20975 of 2024

The ruling No. 20975 of July 26, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly significant issue in the Italian legal landscape: the determination of compensation for the judicial administrator of assets subjected to preventive seizure. This pronouncement is crucial, especially in light of recent legislative changes affecting the matter.

The Regulatory Context and the Issue of Regulatory Gap

The Court found itself tasked with resolving a situation characterized by a regulatory gap. This occurred following the repeal of Article 2 octies of Law No. 575 of 1965, as a result of Article 120 of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011, before the entry into force of the professional fee schedule approved by Presidential Decree No. 177 of 2015. The central issue is whether, in this context, the repealed fees referred to in Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 could be applied.

The Court clarified that these tariffs are no longer applicable even as a reference parameter, emphasizing the necessity of proceeding with an equitable assessment. This aspect is fundamental, as it highlights the importance of considering the specificity of the assignment and the public nature of the function performed by the judicial administrator.

The Key Point of the Ruling

Assets subjected to preventive seizure - Judicial administrator - Liquidation of compensation - Abolition upon termination of the assignment of Article 2 octies of Law No. 575/1965 - Regulatory gap - Applicability of the repealed fees referred to in Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 - Exclusion - Equitable criterion - Necessity - Parameters. Regarding the liquidation of compensation due to the judicial administrator of assets subjected to criminal preventive seizure, when the assignment has ceased after the repeal of Article 2 octies of Law No. 575 of 1965 (by virtue of Article 120 of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011) and before the entry into force of the approved professional fee schedule, in implementation of Article 8 of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2010, with Presidential Decree No. 177 of 2015, the repealed professional fee for accountants referred to in Ministerial Decree No. 169 of 2010 is no longer applicable, even as a reference parameter, as it is necessary to proceed, in the presence of a regulatory gap, with an equitable assessment that takes into account the activity performed, the public nature of the assignment, and the compensatory nature of the fee.

Implications and Final Considerations

This ruling has numerous practical implications. Firstly, it highlights the importance of an equitable approach in the determination of fees, considering not only the activity performed but also the nature of the public service rendered. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for legislative interventions to fill regulatory gaps, thus ensuring greater legal certainty for operators in the sector.

In conclusion, the Court of Cassation has established a fundamental principle that could influence future decisions regarding the liquidation of compensation for judicial administrators. It is hoped that the legislator will intervene to clarify and precisely define the methods of compensation, so that similar situations can be avoided in the future.

Bianucci Law Firm