Testimonial evidence in civil proceedings: the importance of the specificity of facts according to Ordinance no. 29799 of 2025

In the landscape of Italian civil procedural law, testimonial evidence represents one of the most widespread, yet strictly regulated, evidentiary tools. The correct formulation of evidentiary articles is not a mere bureaucratic formality, but an essential requirement to guarantee the right of defense and the efficiency of the proceedings themselves. The Court of Cassation addressed this delicate issue with Ordinance no. 29799 of November 12, 2025, confirming a rigorous approach that grants the judge a penetrating power of ex officio control over the regularity of evidentiary requests.

The case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The matter originated from a dispute between Mr. M. D. P. and the counterparty F. Before the Court of Appeal of Salerno, the appellant's evidentiary requests were rejected due to the generic nature of the formulated testimonial articles. Upon filing an appeal to the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Section, presided over by L. R. with reporting judge S. G. G., dismissed the appeal, upholding the merits decision. The Supreme Court judges took the opportunity to reiterate a cornerstone principle regarding the deduction of evidence, formalized in the following maxim:

The lack of specific indication of the factual circumstances subject to testimonial evidence, as a requirement for its relevance, is detectable ex officio by the judge and determines its inadmissibility.

This maxim highlights how the specificity of facts is not a simple party exception, i.e., an objection that the counterparty must raise for their own protection, but an intrinsic requirement of admissibility of the evidence itself. Consequently, the judge has a duty to detect such deficiency ex officio, excluding witnesses if the deduced circumstances appear generic or indeterminate. This principle aligns with previous case law (see, for example, judgment no. 1294 of 2018), consolidating an orientation aimed at deflating the proceedings from useless or merely exploratory evidentiary activities.

The requirements of Article 244 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and the practical consequences

Article 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly establishes that testimonial evidence must be deduced through the specific indication of the persons to be questioned and the facts, formulated in separate articles. The rigor required by the Supreme Court responds to a dual need: on one hand, to ensure that the witness reports on historical facts perceived directly and not on mere personal evaluations; on the other, to allow the counterparty to fully exercise their right of defense. To avoid the sanction of inadmissibility, evidentiary articles must possess certain characteristics:

• Temporal and spatial determinacy: facts must be placed in a precise time and place context, so that they can be verified.
• Objective formulation: articles must concern historical facts and not evaluations, opinions, or legal judgments of the witness.
• Expository clarity: the formulation must allow the counterparty to prepare an adequate counter-evidence and the magistrate to evaluate its relevance for the purpose of the decision.

If the articles do not meet these standards, the judge cannot admit the evidence, as an examination of generic facts would violate the adversarial principle and unnecessarily slow down the course of the proceedings.

Conclusions: the need for qualified technical defense

In conclusion, Ordinance no. 29799 of 2025 reaffirms the need for an extremely accurate drafting of defensive acts from the very early stages of the proceedings. For legal professionals and citizens facing a civil lawsuit, it emerges with absolute clarity that improvisation in the evidentiary phase can irremediably compromise the outcome of the entire dispute. Relying on a meticulous and competent technical defense is the only way to ensure that one's arguments are adequately represented and accepted in court.