Order no. 19651 of 2024: Analysis of Violation of Law and Subsumption in Civil Proceedings

The recent order no. 19651 of July 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important points for reflection for legal practitioners, particularly regarding the defects of violation of law and the correct subsumption of normative provisions. This ruling fits into the context of a appeal for cassation and focuses on how to distinguish between the violation of legal norms and the inadequate reconstruction of facts.

The Context of the Ruling

In the case under examination, the appellant, P. D., challenged a decision by the Court of Appeal of Sassari, arguing that the trial judge had erred in assessing the case's findings. However, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision, highlighting the distinguishing criteria between an error of subsumption and a contradictory reconstruction of the case. This is a crucial point, as the Court clarifies that the factual ascertainment must remain firm and undisputed.

Defect of violation of law pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3 c.p.c. for defect of subsumption - Inadequate or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case - Distinguishing criteria. The defect of violation of law (art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, c.p.c.) for erroneous subsumption is distinguished from the inadequate or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case, which is excluded from the review of legitimacy, because it postulates that the factual ascertainment made by the trial judge is considered firm and undisputed, and the criticism pertains, in fact, to the erroneous recognition of the abstract normative case, without disputing the assessment of the findings of the case.

Distinction Between Defect of Subsumption and Reconstruction of Facts

The Court of Cassation emphasized a fundamental aspect: the defect of violation of law for erroneous subsumption is distinguished from the inadequate or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case. The latter is excluded from the review of legitimacy, as it is based on a factual ascertainment that the trial judge has already established. Therefore, the appellant cannot contest the assessment of evidence, but only the application of the norm to the specific case.

  • The defect of violation of law implies an incorrect application of the norm.
  • The inadequacy of fact reconstruction is a defect that cannot be reviewed in Cassation.
  • It is essential that the trial judge has made a firm and undisputed factual ascertainment.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 19651 of 2024 represents an important guide for understanding the differences between the various types of defects that may arise in civil proceedings. The clarity with which the Court of Cassation presents the distinguishing criteria is fundamental to ensure a correct application of the law and effective protection of citizens' rights. Legal practitioners should pay particular attention to these indications, to avoid errors in the formulation of appeals and to improve the effectiveness of their arguments.

Bianucci Law Firm