A lengthy proceeding cannot be expedited through a generic request. If you have been waiting for a decision for some time, it is natural to wonder whether there is a way to obtain a sooner hearing, settle the dispute out of court, or receive compensation for the delay already suffered. However, the answers vary depending on the type of proceeding, the stage reached, and the nature of the right at issue.
I want to help you distinguish between tools that are often confused: a reasonable duration is not equivalent to a promise of conclusion by a specific date; remedies against excessive duration do not coincide with alternatives to trial; and a different procedure is not automatically more advantageous. We will examine which elements affect the duration of proceedings, what the Pinto Law provides, and when mediation, negotiation, or arbitration may make sense.
Reasonable duration is not a guaranteed schedule
The duration of proceedings is assessed on a case-by-case basis. A proceeding may require more activities because it involves many parties, contested facts, technical evidence, numerous documents, or complex legal issues. The parties' conduct also has an impact: requested adjournments, necessary additions, appeals, and initiatives that lengthen the adversarial process cannot be automatically attributed to the judicial administration.
The law identifies parameters but does not create a certain deadline for every case. Article 2 of Law No. 89 of March 24, 2001, generally considers three years reasonable for the first instance, two for the second instance, and one for the legitimacy proceeding. It also provides distinct parameters for enforcement proceedings and insolvency procedures. The same article requires consideration of the complexity, subject matter of the proceeding, and conduct of the parties, the judge, and other subjects who contribute to the definition of the case. Law No. 89 of 2001, Article 2.
Exceeding a parameter is not sufficient on its own. The legislation also establishes that the term is still considered complied with if the judgment becomes final within six years. Furthermore, the calculation does not include periods of suspension of the proceedings and, according to the rules provided by law, neither does the time elapsed from the beginning of the period to appeal to the actual filing of the appeal. To understand whether there is a legally relevant delay, it is therefore necessary to reconstruct the sequence of the proceeding rather than simply comparing the start date with today's date.
What facts change the assessment of the delay
You must first consider which proceeding you are looking at. Ordinary civil proceedings, enforcement to recover a debt, administrative proceedings, and criminal trials have different times, acts, and subjects. It is incorrect to lump every phase together or apply a rule designed for one proceeding to another. The starting point of the calculation can also change according to the subject matter and the position of the individual involved.
Indispensable activities are not necessarily unjustified delays. Expert technical advice can be decisive in ascertaining damage or the condition of a property; hearing witnesses may be necessary when facts are contested; joining a third party can prevent contradictory decisions. These activities may take time, but this does not mean that any duration is acceptable. The correct question is whether the time spent finds a concrete reason within the proceeding or depends on unjustified standstills.
A party's choices also have consequences. Requesting adjournments, filing late documents, submitting claims incompatible with the path already undertaken, or using the proceeding abusively can affect the verification of the reasonable time limit and any compensation. The Pinto Law indeed excludes relief in certain hypotheses of knowingly unfounded claims or defenses and abuse of procedural powers that has caused unjustified delay. The remedy therefore does not serve to compensate for the time caused by the conduct of the person invoking it.
The Pinto Law: compensation for delay, not an order to close the case
Equitable relief concerns damages arising from unreasonable duration. Law No. 89 of 2001, known as the Pinto Law, allows for compensation to be requested when the conditions provided by the regulations are met. It does not replace the missing decision in the main proceeding, it does not anticipate the outcome of the case, and it does not compel the judge of the underlying proceeding to decide within a deadline established by the applicant.
Preventive remedies must be checked for the particular procedure. In several cases, the Pinto Law links compensation to the steps provided by Article 1-ter, but this rule does not apply identically to all proceedings. The Constitutional Court has removed some barriers that lacked practical effectiveness: for example, judgment no. 142 of 2023 held that failing to request expedition before the Court of Cassation does not make the compensation claim inadmissible. The type of proceedings, relevant dates and applicable constitutional judgments must therefore be considered. Where a preventive remedy remains required, overlooking it can compromise compensation.
It is not always necessary to wait until the proceedings end. In judgment no. 88 of 2018, the Constitutional Court allowed equitable compensation to be sought while proceedings are still pending, once their reasonable duration has been exceeded. When the proceedings conclude, Article 4 of the Pinto Law provides a six-month time bar running from the date the decision becomes final. Both the delay already accrued and the date of finality matter: the latter does not necessarily coincide with publication of the judgment.
Compensation is neither automatic nor identical for everyone. The judge must verify the excess duration, the circumstances of the proceeding, the existence of prejudice, and the grounds for exclusion provided by law. For this reason, it is not prudent to make rough calculations based solely on the number of years that have passed. The dates of the main acts, suspension orders, initiatives taken, and the outcome of appeals, if any, are required.
Alternatives to civil proceedings: settlement, mediation, negotiation, and arbitration
Alternatives are useful only if the dispute can be settled by the parties. Mediation, assisted negotiation, and arbitration operate primarily in the civil and commercial area of available rights—rights upon which individuals can reach an agreement. They are not tools to obtain a criminal decision, to evade unavailable protections, or to bypass urgent measures that require the intervention of a judge.
Mediation seeks an agreement with the help of a body. The parties present their respective positions before a mediator, who does not decide who is right as a judge would. In certain matters indicated by law, prior recourse to mediation is a condition of admissibility for judicial claims: this means that the case cannot proceed unless that preliminary step is carried out within the prescribed terms. In other disputes, mediation remains a voluntary choice or may be ordered by the judge. Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010 on civil and commercial mediation.
Assisted negotiation is a direct discussion guided by lawyers. Through a written agreement, the parties undertake to cooperate in good faith to attempt an amicable solution. The procedure cannot concern unavailable rights and has an agreed duration within the limits set by law. In certain actions, the invitation to negotiate is required before going to court; this does not compel the opposing party to accept an agreement, but makes it necessary to carefully verify the preliminary step. Rules on assisted negotiation referred to in Legislative Decree No. 149 of 2022.
Arbitration instead entrusts the decision to private individuals chosen by the parties. It is not mediation and does not require the parties to find a compromise. However, it presupposes a valid arbitration agreement and concerns disputes that can be submitted to arbitrators. It may be an appropriate path if the contract contains an arbitration clause or if the parties stipulate one after the dispute arises, but it entails its own rules, costs, and possibilities of challenge. It should not be chosen merely because it is perceived as faster.
What you can consider while proceedings are already pending
An agreement can close the dispute, but requires real convergence. If the parties manage to define the economic or practical point that divides them, they can evaluate a settlement even after the initiation of the case. This avoids waiting for judgment only when the agreement adequately protects both positions. However, accepting a proposal without understanding waivers, guarantees, performance terms, and the allocation of costs can create a new problem instead of solving the existing one.
Not all "alternative" procedures have the same function. In civil proceedings, mediation and negotiation aim at an understanding; arbitration aims at a decision different from a state judgment. In criminal proceedings, alternative procedures have their own prerequisites, effects, and defensive choices: they are not a catalog of shortcuts for those who simply want to shorten the wait. Confusing these levels can lead to renouncing protection or relevant evidence without obtaining the hoped-for advantage.
To orient yourself, a few essential documents are needed. The date of the introductory act, hearing minutes, adjournment or suspension orders, any appeals, and communications received allow the delay to be placed in the correct sequence. If a contract exists, it is also important to check for clauses on mediation, negotiation, or arbitration. You can contact me if you wish to clarify which tool is consistent with the proceeding and the result you intend to achieve.
Frequently asked questions
Can I ask the judge to schedule a hearing immediately?
You can file the requests permitted by the procedure, but no generic request guarantees a near date. The possibility of urging the proceedings depends on the subject matter, the stage, and the acts already required. A useful request must be consistent with the proceeding; it does not replace evidentiary activities that are still indispensable nor does it automatically advance the decision.
If the first instance exceeds three years, am I certainly entitled to compensation?
No, exceeding three years is an important parameter but is not decisive on its own. The judge also considers the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and periods that are not included in the calculation. The law also provides for an overall limit of six years within which the term is still considered complied with.
Is the Pinto Law meant to bring the main proceeding to a close?
No, the Pinto Law is an indemnifying remedy. It can recognize relief for unreasonable duration when the conditions are met, but it does not decide the main dispute and does not impose an immediate judgment. The preventive remedies provided by law have a different function and must be identified in relation to the individual procedure.
Is mediation always mandatory before starting a lawsuit?
No, it is mandatory only in matters indicated by law or when the judge orders it in the cases provided. In many other disputes it is a voluntary choice. Even when it is a condition of admissibility, mediation does not oblige the parties to reach an agreement: it requires carrying out the preliminary step correctly.
Can I choose arbitration after having already started a lawsuit?
This is possible only if the parties reach a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute is arbitrable. Arbitration is not an automatic continuation of proceedings before the court. Before choosing it, one must compare the effects of the clause or agreement, the subject matter of the dispute, and the practical value of an arbitration decision.
Orienting yourself without confusing remedies
The correct remedy depends on the problem you want to solve. If you need to protect a right immediately, the issue is different from seeking relief for time already spent. If you want to avoid a civil lawsuit, you need to understand whether the right allows for an agreement and which procedure is suitable. If you intend to request equitable relief, the parameters of the Pinto Law, preventive remedies, and the six-month deadline from the finality of the decision become central.