Commentary on Judgment No. 20633 of 2024: Just Compensation and Unreasonable Duration of Proceedings

Judgment No. 20633 of July 24, 2024, represents a significant step forward in protecting citizens' rights regarding the speed of justice. This order from the Court of Cassation ruled on a case of just compensation for the unreasonable duration of proceedings, a matter of crucial importance in the Italian and European legal context. The Court established that, in the event of partial acceptance of the compensation claim, the applicant must choose between serving the liquidation decree or objecting to obtain recognition of the claims not granted.

Context of the Judgment

The central issue of the judgment concerns the right to just compensation provided for by Law No. 89 of 2001, also known as the Pinto Law. This law allows citizens to request compensation in cases of unreasonable duration of proceedings. However, the judgment clarifies that, if the amount awarded is less than what was requested, the applicant faces a dilemma. They must decide whether to accept the proposed sum, risking the rejection of the claims not granted, or to object, keeping open the possibility of claiming what was not recognized.

Implications of the Decision

The headnote of the judgment reads:

Claim for just compensation for unreasonable duration of proceedings - Partial acceptance - Consequences. In matters of just compensation, where the decree liquidating compensation for unreasonable duration of proceedings is issued for a sum lower than that requested, the applicant is faced with the alternative between serving it, with consequent acquiescence to the partial rejection of the claim, and objecting pursuant to art. 5-ter of Law no. 89 of 2001, to obtain recognition of the claims not granted, without, however, proceeding in this case to serve the appeal and the decree - which would make the objection inadmissible - and having, rather, to file the act of opposition within the term referred to in art. 5-ter, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned law.

• The applicant can choose to serve the decree, accepting the partial compensation.
• Alternatively, they can decide to object to obtain recognition of the claims not granted, following specific procedures.
• The choice to object requires attention, as serving the appeal would make the objection inadmissible.

This judgment is fundamental because it clarifies the procedures and choices available to those facing a situation of partial acceptance of their claim for just compensation. It provides citizens with a clear framework on how to proceed and the risks associated with each option.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 20633 of 2024 offers us an important reflection on the protection of citizens' rights in matters of justice. It emphasizes the need for careful management of claims for just compensation and legal procedures, so that the rights of those who suffer delays in justice are always respected. This order not only clarifies the responsibilities and possibilities for applicants but also highlights the importance of a judicial system that respects fundamental rights, in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.