Costs of the preventive technical assessment: clarifications from Order no. 30366/2025

In the labyrinth of Italian social security and welfare litigation, the preventive technical assessment (ATP) pursuant to art. 445-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.) represents a crucial step for obtaining the recognition of health requirements, such as civil disability. Often, the outcome of this phase is intertwined with significant economic issues, in particular the settlement of legal costs and the application of the exemption provided for by art. 152 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c. for incomes below a certain threshold. With the recent Order no. 30366 of November 18, 2025, the Court of Cassation addressed a delicate procedural profile, establishing important limits on the appealability of orders concerning costs.

The case and the ruling of the Supreme Court

The matter stems from proceedings initiated by D. (F. M. E.) against I. (C. S.), which resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility by the Court of Rome. At the center of the debate was the challenge to a decree for the settlement of costs issued within the scope of a social security ATP. The appellant, despite having submitted the declaration of income exemption, had been charged with the costs of the procedure, notwithstanding the pendency of a timely opposition. The Court of Cassation took the opportunity to reaffirm the principle of subsidiarity and the correct sequence of procedural remedies.

The principle of law of the Court of Cassation and its practical significance

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is essential to analyze the official principle of law expressed by the Court:

In the context of a preventive technical assessment pursuant to art. 445-bis c.p.c., where a timely opposition is filed, a subsequent appeal to the Court of Cassation against the decree that, in the meantime, has charged the costs of the ATP to the party who had submitted the exemption declaration pursuant to art. 152 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c. is inadmissible, since complaints concerning an irregular ruling on litigation costs relating to the aforementioned phase must be raised against the settlement adopted by the judge at the conclusion of the opposition proceedings, it being irrelevant that, with the aforementioned decree, the judge declared the aforementioned ATP proceeding extinguished.

The Court clearly explains that, if an opposition is filed against the technical assessment, the proceedings continue on the merits. Consequently, any decree on costs issued "in the meantime" (i.e., pending the outcome) does not have a definitive character. Any challenge regarding the erroneous charging of costs – even where it is believed that the right to exemption for income reasons has been violated – must be asserted within the opposition proceedings and against the final judgment that concludes them. An extraordinary appeal to the Court of Cassation is therefore an impassable path at this intermediate stage.

Implications for appellants

This ruling offers clear guidance for defense counsel and citizens facing social security disputes. The key aspects to consider are:

• The non-definitiveness of the intermediate decree: The decree settling costs pending an opposition does not definitively close the matter, which remains sub judice.
• The concentration of defenses: All challenges, including those relating to the violation of art. 152 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.c., must be channeled into the opposition proceedings.
• The risk of inadmissibility: Attempting the path of an immediate appeal to the Court of Cassation entails an inevitable ruling of inadmissibility, with the consequent increase in costs and loss of time.

Conclusions

Order no. 30366/2025 of the Court of Cassation fits into a consolidated jurisprudential path, aimed at avoiding the fragmentation of proceedings and the abuse of means of appeal. For citizens acting in court for the recognition of their social security rights, the judgment represents a warning to strictly follow the stages of the ordinary process, awaiting the outcome of the opposition proceedings before approaching the Supreme Court. A correct defensive strategy proves, once again, to be the primary tool for protecting one's rights without encountering procedural obstacles.