In law, time is a crucial factor. The statute of limitations, a fundamental institution of the Civil Code, establishes a time limit within which a right can be exercised, after which it is extinguished. Understanding the mechanisms that govern its commencement is essential for the protection of one's interests.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Order No. 17451 of June 29, 2025, reiterated a cardinal principle: only legal impediments, and not mere factual ones, can halt the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to Article 2935 of the Civil Code. A ruling that reinforces legal certainty and calls for the utmost diligence in the exercise of one's claims.

The Principle of the Statute of Limitations: Art. 2935 C.C.

Article 2935 C.C. is clear: "The statute of limitations begins to run from the day on which the right can be asserted." This rule aims to ensure the stability of legal relationships and to penalize the inertia of the right holder. Case law has long interpreted this phrase to mean that the impediment to the exercise of the right must be objective and legal in nature.

Factual Obstacles vs. Legal Impediments: The Crucial Distinction

The core of the Cassation's decision, well summarized in the maxim that follows, is the clear distinction between legal impediments and mere factual obstacles:

The impossibility of asserting the right, to which art. 2935 C.C. attributes relevance as a fact preventing the running of the statute of limitations, is only that which derives from legal causes that hinder its exercise and does not include mere factual obstacles (such as delays due to the need to ascertain the right) or subjective impediments, for which the subsequent art. 2941 C.C. provides only specific and exhaustive hypotheses for the suspension of the statute of limitations. (In application of the principle, the S.C. excluded that the erroneous determination by the employer of the amount of the Fund for the supplementary remuneration of medical directors, which constitutes the basis for calculating the supplementary remuneration items – in this case, variable position – constitutes a legal obstacle to an action for damages for the payment of salary differences relating to the aforementioned emolument, due to the possibility of taking legal action to obtain the correct determination of the Fund).

The Supreme Court reiterates that only an impediment of a legal nature – a condition established by law or an objectively insurmountable situation that precludes legal action – can suspend or prevent the running of the statute of limitations. Practical difficulties, delays in ascertaining a debt, or mere subjective difficulties are not sufficient. Article 2941 C.C., in fact, exhaustively provides for the only subjective situations that can suspend the statute of limitations (e.g., between spouses), confirming the exceptional nature of such hypotheses.

The Practical Case: Salary Differences for Medical Directors

The application of the principle was exemplified by the Cassation in the context of salary differences for medical directors. An erroneous determination by the employer of the Fund for supplementary remuneration had been challenged. The appellants complained that this error had prevented them from acting promptly.

The Court ruled that this circumstance did not constitute a legal obstacle. It emphasized that the medical directors could still have taken legal action to obtain the correct determination of the Fund and the payment of the amounts due. Legal action, although complex, was feasible. The burden of ascertaining and asserting one's right, even in the presence of objective difficulties in its quantification, falls on the holder.

In summary, the decision confirms that:

• The erroneous quantification of a debt is not a legal impediment.
• The need for a prior ascertainment of the right does not halt the statute of limitations.
• The possibility of taking legal action, even for the correct determination of a debt, causes the statute of limitations to begin to run.

Conclusions: Act with Diligence to Protect Rights

Order No. 17451 of 2025 by the Cassation is a clear warning: the law does not protect inertia. To avoid the loss of a right due to the statute of limitations, it is essential for the holder to act promptly, overcoming mere factual obstacles and subjective difficulties. Relying on an erroneous interpretation of one's inability to act can have irreversible consequences.

When faced with a right to assert, it is always advisable to consult a legal professional. A thorough analysis will allow for an understanding of the conditions for timely action and the applicable limitation periods, ensuring the full protection of one's interests and the correct application of legal principles.