Damages Compensation and the Court of Cassation: The Non-Reviewability of Quantification. A Commentary on Judgment 24322/2025

Damages compensation is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, aimed at restoring, as far as possible, the financial and non-financial situation of a person harmed by an unlawful act. Its quantification, however, often represents one of the most complex and debated aspects. In this context, the Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 24322 of 17/04/2025 (filed on 02/07/2025), has reiterated a principle of crucial importance, outlining the limits of its review of damages awards and strengthening the role of the trial court judge. Let us analyze the implications of this ruling together to better understand how victims' right to compensation is protected.

The Cornerstone Principle of Judgment 24322/2025

The judgment in question, which involved B. P.M. and A. E. as defendants, focuses on the quantification of damages arising from an unlawful act. The Court of Cassation has clarified that an appeal to the Court of Cassation cannot be used to challenge the mere quantification of damages. This means that once the trial court judge has determined the amount of compensation, the Supreme Court cannot intervene to revise that sum, except in cases of specific procedural defects (such as lack of reasoning or manifest illogicality), but not for a different assessment of the quantum.

In matters of damages compensation for unlawful acts, an appeal to the Court of Cassation contesting the quantification of damages is inadmissible, as it, escaping analytical evaluation, remains entrusted to the discretionary and equitable assessments of the trial court judge, who, in making the award, must take into account the actual suffering endured by the injured party, the gravity of the criminal offense, and all the specific circumstances of the concrete case, so as to render the recognized sum adequate to the specific case and prevent it from representing a mere semblance of compensation.

This maxim from Judgment 24322/2025 is of fundamental importance. The term "inadmissible" emphasizes that the Court of Cassation cannot delve into the merits of the compensation amount established. The reason is clear: the quantification of damages is not an exact science; it is not the result of rigid mathematical calculation. On the contrary, it requires careful consideration of the concrete circumstances, individual suffering, and the gravity of the offense. It is a task that the legislator has entrusted to the discretion of the trial court judge, who is closest to the facts and evidence. The ultimate goal is to ensure that compensation is not a mere "semblance," a symbolic figure, but a sum truly adequate to compensate for the prejudice suffered.

The Crucial Role of the Trial Court Judge in Awarding Damages

The judgment highlights the broad discretionary power and the importance of the role of the trial court judge (tribunal or court of appeal) in the process of awarding damages. This judge must conduct an equitable assessment, based on a series of factors that the Court of Cassation itself lists. Among these, the following stand out:

• The actual suffering endured by the injured party: not only financial loss but also non-pecuniary damage, such as moral or biological damage, must be adequately considered.
• The gravity of the criminal offense: the context and nature of the crime committed influence the perception of the damage and its extent.
• All the peculiarities of the concrete case: each case is unique and presents specific elements that must be weighed to arrive at a just and personalized award.

The trial court judge therefore has the task of "tailoring" the compensation, ensuring that the recognized sum is proportionate and does not represent a mockery of the victim, avoiding purely nominal compensation.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The Court of Cassation's decision is part of a consolidated regulatory and jurisprudential framework. The regulatory references cited in the judgment are fundamental to understanding its scope:

• Article 185 of the Criminal Code establishes that any offense that has caused patrimonial or non-patrimonial damage obliges the perpetrator and those who, according to civil law, are liable for their actions, to compensate for the damage. This article closely links criminal offenses to the right to compensation.
• Articles 2043 and 2059 of the Civil Code are the pillars of civil liability. Article 2043 of the Civil Code defines the general principle of "neminem laedere" (do not harm anyone) and the obligation to compensate for unjust damage. Article 2059 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, governs the compensation for non-pecuniary damages, which can only be awarded in cases determined by law, including those arising from criminal offenses.
• Article 606 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure lists the grounds for which an appeal to the Court of Cassation is admissible, confirming that challenging the mere quantification of damages, barring motivational defects, is not among them.

The judgment is in line with previous case law (such as Section 3, No. 3912 of 1991), reaffirming a consolidated trend that aims to preserve the sphere of competence of the trial court judge in such a delicate and discretionary area.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Judgment 24322/2025 of the Court of Cassation merely reiterates an essential principle for compensatory justice: the quantification of damages is a complex operation that requires personalized assessment and cannot be reduced to a mere calculation. This approach strengthens confidence in the trial court's judgment, entrusting it with the final responsibility of ensuring that victims receive compensation that is truly adequate to the suffering endured and the gravity of the offense.

For those who suffer damage, this means that the primary focus must be on the investigative phase of the first and second instance proceedings, providing the trial court judge with all the necessary elements for a correct and complete assessment of the prejudice. For legal professionals, the judgment serves as a reminder to concentrate efforts on proving and correctly arguing the criteria for awarding damages in the appropriate forums, knowing that the Court of Cassation will only intervene in the presence of very specific procedural defects and not for a different assessment of the compensation quantum.

Ultimately, justice is not only about establishing liability but also about ensuring fair and substantial reparation, an objective that the Supreme Court, with this ruling, has once again sought to emphasize.