The administration’s right to reimbursement of storage costs for a seized vehicle is subject, in the circumstances examined by the Court of Cassation, to a ten-year limitation period. Time starts running when the custodian’s fees are advanced, rather than on the date of the road traffic offence. Order no. 21119 of 29 July 2024 distinguishes this claim from sums payable as an administrative fine, to which the five-year period relied on by the appellants applies.
The demand concerned the storage of a motorcycle
The dispute arose from a payment order issued by the Prefecture of Lecce on 16 February 2017. Payment of €1,849.05 was sought to recover the storage costs of a motorcycle placed under administrative seizure (sequestro amministrativo). The seizure took place on 6 December 2010; the company entrusted with storage issued an invoice on 17 December 2012.
The Justice of the Peace dismissed the challenge and the Lecce Tribunal upheld that decision on appeal. According to the Tribunal, the Prefecture was seeking reimbursement of the costs payable to the custodian under Article 11(1) of Presidential Decree no. 571 of 1982. The demand did not concern payment of a time-barred administrative fine.
Before the Court of Cassation, the individuals concerned argued that five years had elapsed since the offence. Their appeal therefore relied on applying the limitation period for collecting fines to reimbursement of the storage costs.
Why the five-year period does not settle the issue
The Court rejected that argument. The five-year limitation period under Article 28 of Law no. 689 of 1981, referred to by Article 209 of the Highway Code, concerns sums payable as administrative fines. The claim disputed in these proceedings had a different basis: recovery of money advanced by the administration for storage of the seized property.
This distinction affects the assessment of limitation. A demand linked to a road traffic offence may include items of a different legal nature. Identifying the applicable period requires examining what is actually being demanded and on what basis, rather than relying solely on the date of the offence report or seizure.
The ten years run from the advance payment to the custodian
The principle established concerns a vehicle entrusted to a public or private custodian other than either the administration that carried out the seizure or the vehicle’s owner. In the absence of specific provisions, the administration’s right to reimbursement of the costs it has advanced is subject to the ordinary ten-year limitation period.
The starting point is when the administration advances the fees due to the custodian, because its right can be exercised from that moment. The date of the offence is therefore not the reference point identified by the Court for this claim. In recounting the facts, the order gives the invoice date; however, the principle established identifies the advance payment as the fact to ascertain when determining the starting point.
The appeal was dismissed. The challenged decision remained in place; the Court of Cassation did not order fresh proceedings on the merits of the reimbursement demand.
Which documents to examine before challenging reimbursement
The ruling does not state that every storage cost is always payable. When referring to the legislation, the Court identifies those liable to reimburse the costs and recalls the exceptions, including closure of the administrative offence proceedings and a final judgment upholding the challenge. Whether payment is owed remains a separate question from calculating the limitation period.
Assessing a demand therefore requires comparing the seizure order, the custodial arrangements, the payment order and the documentation showing the sums advanced. The documents concerning the outcome of the administrative offence proceedings are also needed. Together, they allow the basis of the claim, the person required to pay and the date relevant to the ten-year period to be checked.
Source: Court of Cassation, Civil Division II, order no. 21119 of 29 July 2024.
