Compensation for damages and civil liability: commentary on ruling no. 18217/2023

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation no. 18217 of June 26, 2023, serves as an important reference point for case law concerning civil liability and compensation for damages, particularly in cases of defamation through the press. The matter began with the publication of an article in a well-known newspaper, in which the geologist A.A. was unjustly associated with a mafia investigation, causing significant harm to his reputation and career.

The A.A. case and its legal implications

The appellant, A.A., saw his public image compromised due to an article that incorrectly identified him as a suspect for external complicity in a mafia association. The Court of Appeal of Catania, while recognizing the responsibility of the Editorial Group Gedi for non-pecuniary damage, reduced the amount of compensation from 50,000 to 10,000 euros, excluding pecuniary damage. This decision prompted A.A. to appeal to the Cassation, highlighting the need for a proper assessment of the damages suffered.

The Court of Cassation emphasized the importance of considering all elements that may affect the quantification of the damage, particularly regarding the severity of the defamation and its dissemination.

The assessment of non-pecuniary damage

The Cassation accepted A.A.'s appeal grounds, highlighting that the Court of Appeal did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in the Milanese tables for assessing non-pecuniary damage. A series of factors, such as the notoriety of the defamed and the severity of the news, must be considered in the final assessment. In this context, the Cassation clarified that it is not sufficient to regard the error as unintentional and episodic, but it is necessary to analyze the impact it had on the professional and personal life of the injured party.

Conclusions and future prospects

The decision of the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in protecting citizens' rights against defamation through the press. It establishes that the assessment of damage must be realistic and proportionate to the severity of the wrongdoing. The issue of pecuniary damage, excluded by the Court of Appeal, remains open and will be subject to further assessment, with a referral for a new examination. This case underscores the importance of correct and responsible information to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Bianucci Law Firm