Punitive damages and public policy: the Court of Cassation confirms the enforceability of foreign judgments with ruling no. 31244 of 2025

In the context of an increasingly interconnected global market, the circulation of judicial decisions between different States represents a daily necessity. One of the most debated topics in recent years concerns the compatibility of so-called "punitive damages" with the fundamental principles of the Italian legal system. Traditionally, civil liability in Italy has served an almost exclusively compensatory or restorative function. However, case law has progressively paved the way for a multifunctional view of civil liability, most recently confirmed by the Court of Cassation in the landmark ruling no. 31244 of November 30, 2025, involving F. P. against I.

The specific case and the Supreme Court's ruling

The matter originated from a judgment issued in the State of California, in which a party was ordered to pay so-called "treble damages," i.e., a sum equal to three times the actual loss suffered by the creditor. The Court of Appeal of Rome had declared the enforceability of this judgment in Italy, deeming it not contrary to public policy. An appeal to the Court of Cassation was filed against this decision. The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 31244/2025, dismissed the appeal, confirming the recognition of the foreign judgment and consolidating a trend that aligns Italy with the dynamics of international trade.

Conditions for the recognition of punitive damages

The Court of Cassation clarifies that punitive damages are not inherently incompatible with Italian public policy, provided that specific procedural and substantive safeguards are met. In particular, recognition is subject to the verification of three fundamental requirements:

• Effective adversarial proceedings: the proceedings abroad must have been conducted in full compliance with the right of defense and the adversarial principle between the parties;
• Typicality and predictability: the award must be based on clear foreign legal provisions that define the illicit conduct and make the sanction foreseeable;
• Quantitative limits: there must be maximum caps or precise mathematical criteria (such as triple damages in the case of treble damages) that exclude the arbitrariness of the quantification.

The recognition within the Italian legal system of a foreign judgment does not conflict with public policy provided that it is rendered on a legal basis that guarantees the proper establishment of effective adversarial proceedings between the parties, in accordance with the law of the place where the proceedings took place, the typicality of the grounds for the award, and the predictability of the same and its quantitative limits; therefore, the recognition of a foreign judgment containing punitive damages is not incompatible, given that civil liability may fulfill, alongside its compensatory-restorative function, a deterrent and dissuasive function as well.

This principle highlights how civil liability in our legal system no longer serves solely the purpose of "restoring" the victim, but may legitimately pursue the goals of deterrence and the prevention of serious illicit conduct, provided there is a legal basis and protection of the adversarial process.

Conclusions: a step forward towards global legal integration

Ruling no. 31244 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental element for legal certainty in transnational relations. By emphasizing the predictability of the sanction and the guarantee of due process, the judges of the Supreme Court provide a secure instrument for the enforceability of foreign decisions, while simultaneously protecting debtors from arbitrary or disproportionate awards.