Administrative seizure of vehicles 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 significant issue in the field of administrative law and asset liability, focusing on the seizure of vehicles in the event of violations of the highway code. This judicial intervention provides insights into the right to reimbursement of custody expenses and the relevant statute of limitations, clarifying some fundamental regulatory aspects.

The context of the ruling

The controversy originated from the situation of administrative seizure of a vehicle, carried out due to violations of the highway code. The Court analyzed the applicable regulations, particularly Article 11, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 571 of 1982, which governs the custody expenses advanced by the administration. It emerged that the right to reimbursement of such expenses is subject to the ordinary ten-year statute of limitations, which begins from the moment of the advance payment of the allowances due to the custodian.

The significance of the maxim

In general. In the case of administrative seizure of a vehicle for violations of the highway code and its entrustment to a public or private custodian, different from both the administration that executed 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 executed the seizure belongs, pursuant to Article 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, starting from the moment the right can be enforced, which coincides with that of the advance payment of the allowances due to the custodian.

This maxim emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of custody expenses in the case of seizure. The reimbursement remains a right of the administration, but it is essential that the interested party is aware of the statute of limitations to avoid losing the right to request it.

Practical and regulatory implications

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

  • The need for efficient management of seizure and custody procedures for vehicles.
  • The awareness of administrations regarding the statute of limitations 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 thus not only establishes a fundamental principle but also urges all parties involved to pay greater attention to the regulations and timelines provided by law.

Conclusions

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

Bianucci Law Firm