Commentary on Order No. 16039 of 2024: Fair Compensation and Revocation Proceedings

The recent Order No. 16039 of June 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights regarding fair compensation in the context of revocation proceedings. This decision is part of an important legal debate, that concerning the reasonable duration of proceedings, a principle enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Regulatory Framework

According to the order in question, the right to fair compensation, provided for by Law No. 89 of 2001, cannot be automatically recognised. In fact, the applicant must submit a request for a decision using the accelerated remedy provided for by Article 281-sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure. This article, applicable by virtue of Article 352, paragraph 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, underlines the importance of active and collaborative conduct by the parties involved in the proceedings.

Fair compensation in revocation proceedings against the appeal judgment - Prerequisites - Proposal of the accelerated remedy referred to in art. 281 sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable ex art. 352, paragraph 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure ratione temporis in force - Methods - Notion as per Constitutional Court No. 121 of 2021. In terms of fair compensation for the unreasonable duration of revocation proceedings against the appeal judgment, the right to compensation does not exist if a request for a decision is not made following oral proceedings pursuant to art. 281-sexies of the Code of Civil Procedure - applicable by virtue of the last paragraph of art. 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure ratione temporis in force and constituting a preventive remedy ex art. 1-ter, paragraph 1, of law no. 89 of 2001 - as the party is required, as clarified by the Constitutional Court in judgment no. 121 of 2020, to behave collaboratively with the judge, to whom they must express their willingness to switch to the simplified procedure or the concentrated decision-making model, in time potentially useful to avoid exceeding the reasonable duration of the proceedings, with the judge remaining responsible for verifying the usability of the different decision-making model.

Collaborative Conduct and Party Responsibility

A crucial aspect highlighted by the order is the need for collaborative conduct by the parties involved in the proceedings. The Constitutional Court, in judgment No. 121 of 2020, clarified that it is essential for the parties to express their willingness to switch to a simplified procedure or a concentrated decision-making model. This approach not only facilitates case management but also helps to avoid situations of unreasonable duration of proceedings.

• Timely submission of the request for a decision
• Active collaboration with the judge
• Willingness to modify the procedural model

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 16039 of 2024 represents an important step towards a more efficient judicial system that respects the rights of the parties. It clarifies that the right to fair compensation is not an automatic entitlement but requires active commitment from those involved in revocation proceedings. Collaboration with the judge thus proves fundamental to ensuring the reasonable duration of proceedings, a principle that not only protects citizens' rights but also supports the efficiency of the legal system as a whole.