Settlement of legal costs: the obligation of phase-based specification in Court of Cassation no. 28631/2025

When dealing with a lawsuit, the determination of litigation costs represents a crucial moment that requires precision, transparency, and methodological rigor. The Court of Cassation, with the recent order no. 28631 of October 29, 2025, has returned to clarify a fundamental principle for the protection of the parties and the correctness of the actions of the trial judges: the obligation to settle professional fees by analytically distinguishing each phase of the proceedings, avoiding lump-sum accumulations that prevent the verification of legal parameters.

The specific case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The litigation stems from a dispute in social security matters that saw I. (represented by C. P.) and F. as opposing parties. The Court of Catania, at the trial level, had proceeded to a comprehensive and cumulative settlement of litigation costs, merging the phase of the preventive technical assessment (a.t.p.) pursuant to art. 445-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure and the subsequent phase of the opposition proceedings. This calculation method resulted in a global settlement exceeding the permitted tariff maximums, without allowing for an analytical check on individual expense items.

The Labor Section of the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, quashing the judgment with remand and reiterating that the determination of costs cannot disregard a breakdown by individual procedural phases, as provided for by Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014.

The principle of phase-based settlement and tariff transparency

Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014 establishes precise parameters for the determination of lawyers' fees, structuring them in relation to the different phases into which the process is divided. According to the Court, cumulative determination is inadmissible as it prevents the legality check on the applied tariffs. The settlement must therefore be distinguished and specified for the following phases:

• Study phase of the dispute;
• Introductory phase of the proceedings;
• Evidentiary and/or hearing phase;
• Decision-making phase.

In the case of social security a.t.p., the preventive instruction phase and any subsequent opposition proceedings constitute autonomous procedural moments that require a distinct settlement of costs, in order to avoid arbitrary decisions or violations of statutory limits.

The maxim of the Court of Cassation

Regarding procedural costs, the settlement of fees according to Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014 must be carried out for each phase of the proceedings, so as to allow for the verification of the correctness of the parameters used and compliance with the relevant tables.

This principle, clearly expressed in order no. 28631/2025, is in line with the Court's previous guidelines (such as judgment no. 19482 of 2018). The commentary on this maxim highlights how the right to transparency in the settlement of costs is not a mere formal requirement, but a substantial guarantee for the citizen and the professionals involved. Only through an analytical breakdown is it possible to verify whether the judge has respected the minimum and maximum tariffs provided by law.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation reaffirms the importance of methodological rigor in the settlement of procedural costs. For citizens and legal practitioners, this order represents an important safeguard against cumulative decisions that risk resulting in a disproportionate or unverifiable settlement. Tariff transparency remains, therefore, an indispensable pillar of due process.