Bianucci Law Firm
International protection and service by mail: Supreme Court Order no. 28894 of 2025

Supreme Court Order no. 28894 of 2025 clarifies that the service by mail of the rejection of international protection is perfected only upon delivery. In case of doubt regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the judge has a duty to request evidence from the Administration.

Bianucci Law Firm
Expropriation for public utility and extension of occupation: clarifications from the Court of Cassation in Judgment no. 29344 of 2025

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 29344 of 2025, defines the limits of effectiveness for the extension of temporary occupation orders, clarifying when notification to the owner is mandatory and when the act produces immediate effects.

Bianucci Law Firm
Public procurement and payment of the balance: the statute of limitations does not await delayed final acceptance according to Ordinance no. 29191 of 2025

The Court of Cassation Ordinance no. 29191 of 2025 clarifies the limitation periods for the contractor's right to the balance in public contracts. Learn why delayed final acceptance by the Public Administration does not interrupt the statute of limitations and how to protect your claims in a timely manner.

Bianucci Law Firm
Extraordinary administration and ineffectiveness of payments: the Court of Cassation clarifies with ordinance no. 29057/2025

With ordinance no. 29057/2025, the Court of Cassation establishes the applicability of Article 44 of the Bankruptcy Law to the extraordinary administration of large enterprises, setting the effects of dispossession from the zero hour of the day of the commissioner's appointment.

Bianucci Law Firm
Financial intermediary obligations and the qualified investor: an analysis of Order no. 29025 of 2025

With Order no. 29025 of 2025, the Court of Cassation clarifies the evidentiary scope of the written declaration of a qualified investor under CONSOB Regulations, outlining the boundaries of financial intermediary disclosure obligations and the burden of proof incumbent upon the investor.

Bianucci Law Firm
The applicable interest rate on privileged claims in bankruptcy: Ordinance no. 29601 of 2025

How is interest calculated on privileged claims in bankruptcy proceedings? Ordinance no. 29601 of 10/11/2025 issued by the Court of Cassation clarifies that the general statutory interest rate under Article 1284 of the Italian Civil Code applies, excluding special laws to safeguard the principle of equal treatment of creditors.

Bianucci Law Firm
Detention of migrants and validation terms: the orientation of the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 29554 of 2025

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 29554 of 2025, clarifies the terms for the validation of migrant detention in Repatriation Detention Centers (CPR). Temporary stay in first reception facilities following disembarkation does not trigger the 48-hour period required for the validation of the Questore's order.

Bianucci Law Firm
Action for ineffectiveness under Article 44 of the Bankruptcy Law and mandatory mediation: clarification by the Court of Cassation in Order no. 29432 of 2025

With Order no. 29432 of 2025, the Court of Cassation clarifies that an action seeking to declare the ineffectiveness of a bankrupt's acts pursuant to Article 44 of the Bankruptcy Law does not require the prior exhaustion of mandatory mediation, as it does not concern property rights.

Bianucci Law Firm
Asset protection in over-indebtedness: rules on complaints according to Order no. 29918 of 2025

The Court of Cassation Order no. 29918 of November 12, 2025, clarifies the application of the chamber proceedings and the burden of the complaint pursuant to art. 739 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the liquidation of the over-indebted party's assets, ensuring stability of sales and protection of creditors.

Bianucci Law Firm
Territorial jurisdiction and online counterfeiting: analysis of Order no. 30212/2025

The Court of Cassation, with Order no. 30212 of 16/11/2025, defines the criteria for establishing territorial jurisdiction in cases of online sale of counterfeit goods. Discover why the place of delivery is not relevant for the purposes of the competent court.