Commentary on Judgment No. 525 of 2025: The Power of the Judge and Civil Evidence

The judgment no. 525 of January 9, 2025, of the Court of Cassation serves as an important reference point for understanding the power of the judge to request information from public administration, particularly in disputes concerning compensation for damages. In this article, we will examine the implications of the decision and how it fits into the current legal context.

The Power of the Judge under Art. 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court of Cassation established that the failure to exercise the power referred to in art. 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to scrutiny in legitimacy only under specific conditions. In particular, it is necessary that:

  • There has been a request from the interested party.
  • The refusal by the judge has been justified.
  • The judicial order is the only way to obtain information from public administration.
Power referred to in art. 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Failure to exercise - Scrutiny under art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure - Conditions - Case. The failure to exercise the power of the judge referred to in art. 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to scrutiny in legitimacy, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, only if there has been a request from a party, if the refusal has been justified, and if the judicial order is the only means to obtain the information held by public administration. (In this case, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning compensation for damages from blood transfusions, annulled with referral the judgment that had denied the existence of the prerequisites referred to in art. 213 of the Code of Civil Procedure without indicating the source that would have allowed the Ministry of Health to request from the Region the documentation suitable to prove the sums received by the plaintiff as compensation under Law No. 210 of 1992).

Implications of the Judgment

This decision of the Court of Cassation has significant repercussions for civil procedural law and for the right to compensation for damages. In particular, in the case examined, regarding compensation for damages from blood transfusions, the Court emphasized the importance of transparency and access to information. This means that, in situations where the judge has the power to request data from public administration, it is essential that this power is exercised appropriately and justified.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 525 of 2025 represents a step forward in the protection of citizens' rights, emphasizing the need for judicial action that ensures access to vital information for decision-making. The Court of Cassation has drawn attention to the duties of the judge and the legitimate expectations of the parties involved, establishing a precedent that may influence future disputes in the area of compensation for damages and, more generally, in the relationship between justice and public administration.

Bianucci Law Firm