Public procurement and balance of payment: the statute of limitations does not await late inspection according to Ordinance no. 29191 of 2025

In the public procurement sector, the management of payment timelines and the verification of the proper execution of works have always represented critical issues for both companies and contracting authorities. A particularly delicate matter concerns the contractor's right to obtain the balance of the agreed compensation and the exact moment when the ordinary statute of limitations begins to run to assert such a right, especially if the Public Administration is late in performing the inspection (collaudo). With Ordinance no. 29191 of November 5, 2025, the Court of Cassation provided a fundamental clarification on this aspect, curbing bureaucratic delays and precisely defining the temporal boundaries to protect legal certainty.

The case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The dispute originated from the appeal filed by B. C. against the Ministry (defended by the State Attorney General's Office) against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome. At the center of the debate was the request for the balance of payment for a public works contract, contested by the administration due to the statute of limitations of the right. The Court of Cassation, confirming the second-instance decision, rejected the appeal, reiterating a consolidated but still current jurisprudential principle regarding late inspections.

The crux of the decision lies in the interpretation of Article 5 of Law no. 741 of 1981. This rule imposes precise deadlines on the Public Administration for the execution of the inspection. What happens if these deadlines are exceeded without the administration taking action? According to the Court, the inertia of the Public Administration cannot be to the perpetual disadvantage of the contractor, but it cannot be used to indefinitely postpone the commencement of the statute of limitations.

The principle of law (Massima) of the Court of Cassation

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

In the matter of public procurement, once the deadline for the execution of the inspection by the Public Administration has expired, pursuant to art. 5, Law no. 741 of 1981, as applicable ratione temporis, the dies a quo for the maturation of the ordinary statute of limitations for the contractor's right to the balance of the agreed compensation runs from the date of completion of the works, with the subsequent late inspection being irrelevant for the purposes of interrupting the statute of limitations, since the terms of the aforementioned rule are not available to the Public Administration, which thus appears to have exhausted, limited to these purposes, the relative public power, with the late inspection being equated to a refusal of inspection or a failure to inspect.

Practical consequences for contracting companies

The principle expressed in the ordinance entails important practical consequences for all companies operating in the public works market. In particular, the following key points are highlighted:

• Commencement of the term: Once the works are completed and the legal deadline for the inspection has expired without it being performed, the ten-year statute of limitations to request the balance begins to run immediately from the date of completion of the works.
• Irrelevance of late inspection: An inspection carried out late by the Public Administration does not have the effect of interrupting or resetting the course of the statute of limitations. The late act is legally equated to a refusal or a failure to inspect.
• Exhaustion of power: The Public Administration does not have the authority to dispose of the terms established by law. Once these limits are exceeded, it loses the public power to defer the effects of the inspection on the commencement of the statute of limitations.

This orientation aims to prevent the contractor from remaining indefinitely exposed to the arbitrariness or inefficiency of the contracting authority, while encouraging companies to be active in requesting payment without passively waiting for the administration's convenience.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance no. 29191 of 2025 sends a clear warning to operators in the sector: one must not wait for the formal inspection to take action in protecting one's claims if bureaucratic times extend beyond what is permitted. Companies must constantly monitor the date of completion of the works and the legal deadlines for the inspection, implementing timely acts to interrupt the statute of limitations (such as formal payment notices) to avoid seeing their right to the balance vanish. Timely and specialized legal advice in public contract law represents the best tool to prevent unpleasant surprises and ensure the company's financial stability.