The Judgment No. 16669 of 14/06/2024: Confession and Disadvantageous Facts in Civil Law

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 16669 of June 14, 2024, provides important insights regarding confession in civil law, particularly on the concept of "disadvantageous fact" and its applicability in obligatory relationships. The decision is set within a complex legal context, where unilateral statements take on different value depending on their nature and the subject involved.

The Concept of Confession and Disadvantageous Facts

The Court established that, for the purpose of attributing confessional value to a statement, a "disadvantageous fact" is understood as the contested fact that harms a legal interest claimed by the confessor against the opposing party in the legal proceedings. In other words, only statements that harm the legal interests of the declarant can be considered as confession.

In the case at hand, the guarantors of a bank admitted to being debtors of a company in favor of which they had granted a mortgage on their assets. However, the Court excluded the confessional value of such statements, as they did not fall within the limits established by the principle of "disadvantageous fact." This highlights the importance of understanding the context in which a confession is made and its impact on legal relationships.

Reflections on the Judgment

In general. For the purpose of attributing confessional value to a statement, a "disadvantageous fact" for the party making it must be understood as the contested fact that harms a legal interest claimed by the confessor against the opposing party, which simultaneously benefits from it, within the scope of the only obligatory relationship with the recipient, as the legal system does not tolerate that anyone can negatively affect another's legal sphere through their unilateral statement, except in cases expressly provided by law. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the ruling of merit that excluded the confessional value, against a bank, of the statements by which its guarantors had admitted to being debtors of a company, in favor of which they had granted a mortgage on their assets, different from the principal debtor of the same bank, within the scope of a proceeding initiated by the bank aimed at ascertaining the nullity of the mortgage due to the non-existence of the guaranteed credit).

This ruling draws attention to the importance of considering the context and the relationships between the parties involved in a confession. The Court reiterated that it is not possible for one person to compromise the legal position of another through unilateral statements, except in cases expressly provided by law. This principle is fundamental to ensuring fairness and justice in obligatory relationships.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16669 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding of confession in civil law. It clarifies the limits within which a statement can be considered as confession and underscores the importance of the concept of "disadvantageous fact." This invites us to reflect on how statements made in a legal context can influence the rights of the parties involved and the balance of legal relationships.

Bianucci Law Firm