In civil law, the interpretation of contractual clauses plays a fundamental role in resolving disputes. Order No. 353 of January 8, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant food for thought on this topic, particularly addressing the unappealability of the interpretation provided by the lower court judge and the limits to the review of such assessments in the Supreme Court.

The Principle of Unappealability of Contractual Interpretation

The Court of Cassation has clarified that the interpretation of a contract is reserved for the lower court judge, who operates based on the canons of contractual hermeneutics. The maxim reported in the order states:

UNAPPEALABILITY IN THE SUPREME COURT Issue relating to the erroneous interpretation of contractual clauses - Admissibility - Limits - Case law. The interpretation of the contract is reserved for the lower court judge and is appealable before the Supreme Court only for erroneous or insufficient reasoning, or for violation of the canons of contractual hermeneutics, which must be deduced by specifically indicating in the appeal to the Supreme Court how the judge's reasoning deviated from the aforementioned canons; otherwise, the reconstruction of the content of the parties' will amounts to a mere proposal of a different interpretation from the one being challenged, as such, inadmissible before the Supreme Court. (In this case, applying the aforementioned principle, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the ground of appeal with which - in a case for damages for breach of obligations undertaken by a professional tasked with the thermal insulation of a building - the interpretation of the Regional Court, which had excluded the novative nature of the agreements concluded between the parties for the elimination of defects, was challenged, because this criticism had not been articulated through the presentation of an objective contradiction with the common sense of what was attributed to the text and the interpreted behavior or of the macroscopic irrationality or intimate contradiction of the overall interpretation of the act, but rather by merely indicating the reasons why the criticized interpretative reading was not considered shareable, compared to the one considered preferable).

This principle highlights that an appeal to the Supreme Court cannot be limited to proposing a different interpretation but must specifically demonstrate how the lower court judge's interpretation deviates from the canons established by law.

The Case and Practical Implications

The case in question concerned a claim for damages for breach of contractual obligations. In this context, the Court of Cassation deemed the appeal inadmissible because the criticisms leveled against the interpretation provided by the lower court judge did not meet the required specificity. This leads to reflection on the importance of adequate preparation of the grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court, particularly:

• The need to clearly indicate violations of hermeneutic canons.
• The requirement for an in-depth analysis of the reasoning provided by the lower court judge.
• The risk of inadmissibility if the criticisms remain generic or insufficiently substantiated.

Conclusions

Order No. 353 of 2025 underscores the importance of careful and well-reasoned contractual interpretation, highlighting the limits and responsibilities of the appellant before the Supreme Court. For legal professionals, it is crucial to consider these aspects to ensure the proper defense of their clients' rights, avoiding the mistake of presenting generic criticisms that could jeopardize the outcome of the appeal.