Commentary on Judgment No. 8910 of 2024: Abuse of Process and Judicial Costs

The recent Order No. 8910 of April 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Naples, offers interesting insights regarding the management of judicial costs in cases of fair reparation. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of abuse of process, highlighting how the simultaneous filing of distinct appeals by multiple parties with identical legal representation can lead to significant consequences.

The Regulatory Framework and the Judgment

The Court recalled the principles established by the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right to a fair trial and the reasonable duration of proceedings. In this perspective, the maxim expressed by the judgment reads:

In general. Regarding fair reparation, the conduct of multiple parties who simultaneously file distinct appeals, even with identical legal representation, thus giving rise to cases inevitably destined for consolidation due to their connection in subject matter and title, constitutes an abuse of process. This conduct contrasts with the mandatory duty of solidarity, which prevents the debtor State from bearing the damage arising from increased procedural burdens, as well as with the constitutional principle of the reasonable duration of the process, considering the lengthening of procedural times caused by the unnecessary proliferation of proceedings. Such abuse, although not punishable by the inadmissibility of the appeals (as the adopted instrument is not illegitimate but its methods of use are), nevertheless requires, as far as possible, the elimination of the distorting effects that derive from it and, therefore, the assessment of the cost of expenses as if the proceeding had been a single one from the outset.

This maxim clearly emphasizes that the submission of multiple appeals by parties in an identical situation, while legitimate, can be considered an abuse that negatively impacts the efficiency of the judicial system. The principle of solidarity between citizens and the State becomes crucial in this context, as the proliferation of connected cases can lead to a significant increase in judicial costs and a lengthening of dispute resolution times.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of the judgment are manifold and concern both the parties involved in similar cases and the lawyers assisting them. Among the most relevant consequences, we can list:

• The need to carefully evaluate the filing of distinct appeals by multiple parties.
• The possible consolidation of proceedings into a single case when the conditions of connection exist.
• The possibility of assessing judicial costs as if the proceeding had been a single one, to avoid unjustified cost increases.

These aspects are fundamental to ensuring efficient and sustainable justice, in line with the principles of fairness and reasonable duration of proceedings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 8910 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the regulation of judicial costs and in combating abuse of process. It invites legal professionals to reflect on the importance of a more coordinated and responsible approach in managing disputes, leveraging principles of solidarity and efficiency. Justice, in fact, must be an accessible right and not a burden for the system, and this order moves in that direction.