The Value of the Claim and the Appealability of Judgments: The Keys to Cassation Ordinance 9970/2025

In the complex landscape of Italian civil law, decisions of the Court of Cassation serve as a compass for guiding the interpretation and application of rules. A recent ruling, Ordinance No. 9970 of April 16, 2025, proves to be of particular interest, offering important clarifications regarding the determination of the value of damages claims brought before the Justice of the Peace and, consequently, the appeal mechanism available. This ruling, presided over by Dr. T. G. and drafted by rapporteur Dr. A. I., intervenes in a dispute between F. A. and A., rejecting an appeal against a judgment of the Court of Bologna dated January 26, 2022.

The Jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace and Decisions Based on Equity

The Justice of the Peace, pursuant to Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has limited jurisdiction based on value. Specifically, for cases concerning movable property, their jurisdiction extends up to 5,000 euros. However, Article 113, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Justice of the Peace shall decide cases whose value does not exceed 1,100 euros based on equity, except for those arising from legal relationships concerning contracts or torts related to the circulation of vehicles and watercraft. This distinction is crucial, as judgments rendered based on equity are only appealable for violation of procedural rules, constitutional or EU rules, or the governing principles of the matter, as established by Article 339, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The focal point of Ordinance 9970/2025 lies precisely in the assessment of when a claim for damages exceeds the equity jurisdiction threshold, thereby altering the possibilities for appeal. Often, lawyers, as a precaution, include in their summons a specific claim for damages (e.g., 950 euros) alongside a general clause such as "or any greater or lesser sum deemed just." The Cassation Court has ruled on the effectiveness of this clause.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Detailed Analysis

In proceedings initiated before the Justice of the Peace for damages (in this case, aggravated defamation), where the plaintiff, in addition to requesting a specific sum not exceeding one thousand one hundred euros, has also concluded, alternatively or subsidiarily, for the defendant's conviction to pay a greater or lesser sum to be determined during the proceedings, such latter indication, while not to be considered a mere stylistic clause, cannot, however, be deemed sufficient in itself to demonstrate the plaintiff's intention to claim a greater sum – and even less a sum exceeding 1,100 euros – in the absence of any other interpretative index capable of generating at least the doubt that the alleged circumstances are potentially capable of exceeding the expressly mentioned value and, in particular, that within which decisions based on equity are permitted. (In this case, the S.C. confirmed the judgment of the court that had declared inadmissible pursuant to art. 339, paragraph 3, c.p.c. the appeal filed against the judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace, deeming irrelevant, for the purpose of identifying the appeal mechanism available, the further request, made by the plaintiff with the summons, for the defendant's conviction to pay "a different sum deemed just," compared to the specifically quantified amount of 950 euros).

This ruling is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation, while acknowledging that the general clause is not a mere meaningless formality, drastically limits its scope. It is not enough to request a "greater or lesser" sum to automatically exceed the 1,100 euro threshold and, consequently, to make the Justice of the Peace's judgment ordinarily appealable. For a claim to be considered of a value exceeding 1,100 euros, there must be other evidentiary or circumstantial elements capable of generating a reasonable doubt that the actual damage may exceed this amount. In the absence of such "interpretative indices," the general request is not sufficient to alter the nature of the decision based on equity and, consequently, the limitations on appeal provided for by Article 339, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the specific case, the request for 950 euros, although accompanied by the general formula, was not deemed sufficient to overcome the threshold, leading to the inadmissibility of the appeal.

Practical Implications for Citizens and Lawyers

The consequences of this ordinance are significant. For citizens, it means that, even in the presence of a request "for justice," if the quantified damage is less than 1,100 euros and there are no concrete elements suggesting greater damage, the Justice of the Peace's judgment will be difficult to appeal. For lawyers, the ruling requires greater attention in drafting initial pleadings:

• It is crucial to specify in detail the reasons why the damage could exceed the 1,100 euro threshold, even if a specific lower sum is indicated.
• Evidence or circumstantial elements supporting the potential greater extent of the damage must be attached, avoiding reliance solely on the "stylistic clause."
• The assessment of jurisdiction by value and the appeal regime must be carried out with extreme care from the very beginning of the proceedings.

This ruling aligns with previous orientations of the Cassation Court (such as Ruling No. 24153 of 2010), although it diverges from others (such as Ruling No. 3290 of 2018), highlighting the need for a rigorous interpretation to ensure legal certainty and procedural efficiency.

Conclusions

Ordinance 9970/2025 of the Court of Cassation reiterates a fundamental principle: the mere general formula requesting a "greater or lesser sum" is not sufficient, in itself, to determine a claim exceeding the Justice of the Peace's jurisdiction by value that would allow for ordinary appeal. It is essential that the plaintiff provides concrete and circumstantial elements that support the possibility of compensation exceeding the 1,100 euro threshold. This decision calls for legal professionals to exercise greater precision in quantifying claims and in deducing factual circumstances, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises during the appeal phase and to ensure the full protection of their clients' rights.