Administrative seizure of a vehicle and reimbursement of expenses: the case of ruling no. 21119 of 2024

The Court of Cassation, with order no. 21119 of July 29, 2024, addressed a relevant issue in administrative law and patrimonial liability, focusing on vehicle seizure in cases of traffic code violations. This jurisprudential intervention offers food for thought on the right to reimbursement of custody expenses and its statute of limitations, clarifying some fundamental regulatory aspects.

The context of the ruling

The dispute originated from the administrative seizure of a vehicle, carried out for traffic code violations. The Court analyzed the applicable regulations, particularly Article 11, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree no. 571 of 1982, which governs custody expenses advanced by the administration. It emerged that the right to reimbursement of these expenses is subject to the ordinary ten-year statute of limitations, which begins to run from the date the indemnities due to the custodian were advanced.

The meaning of the maxim

In general. In the case of administrative seizure of a vehicle for traffic code violations and its entrustment to a public or private custodian, different from both the administration that carried out the seizure and the owner of the seized vehicle, the right to reimbursement of custody expenses advanced by the administration to which the public official who carried out the seizure belongs, pursuant to art. 11, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree no. 571 of 1982, is subject, in the absence of specific provisions, to the ordinary ten-year statute of limitations, running from the moment the right can be asserted, which coincides with the date on which the indemnities due to the custodian were advanced.

This maxim emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of custody expenses in cases of seizure. Reimbursement remains a right of the administration, but it is crucial for the interested party to be aware of the prescription periods in order not to lose the right to claim it.

Practical and regulatory implications

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the individual case, touching upon various operational and regulatory aspects. In particular, it is useful to consider:

• The need for efficient management of vehicle seizure and custody procedures.
• Awareness by administrations regarding the prescription terms for the reimbursement of expenses.
• The right of citizens to be informed about the procedures and rights concerning the seizure of their vehicles.

Ruling no. 21119 of 2024 therefore not only establishes a fundamental principle but also calls for greater attention from all parties involved to the regulations and timelines provided by law.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the order of the Court of Cassation offers a clear indication on the management of custody expenses in cases of administrative seizure. It is essential for administrations and citizens to understand the implications of this regulation in order to avoid disputes and ensure the correct application of the laws. Knowledge of rights and duties in these circumstances is essential for civil coexistence and respect for current regulations.