Unjust enrichment and healthcare services: commentary on ordinance no. 16980 of 2024

Judgment no. 16980 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important jurisprudential intervention on unjust enrichment, with particular reference to healthcare services provided by the Public Administration (PA) in the absence of accreditation. This case raises crucial issues regarding the responsibilities of healthcare facilities and the legal consequences of their actions.

Context of the judgment

In the case at hand, the Court examined a situation where healthcare services were provided to the PA despite the revocation of the agreement and the consequent lack of accreditation of the facility. The Court of Appeal of Messina had initially recognised compensation for unjust enrichment, but the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, highlighting that the nature of the enrichment was to be considered "imposed". This implies that there was no possibility of pursuing the action provided for by art. 2041 of the Civil Code.

Unjust enrichment: meaning and implications

Unjust enrichment - PA - Healthcare services provided without accreditation due to revocation of the agreement - "Imposed" nature of enrichment - Consequences - Case law. In terms of unjust enrichment, healthcare services provided to the PA in the absence of facility accreditation, due to the revocation of the agreement, imply the "imposed" nature of the enrichment, which precludes the possibility of an action under art. 2041 of the Civil Code. (In the specific case, the Supreme Court quashed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had deemed the recognition of compensation for unjust enrichment admissible, failing to consider the effects of the finding of lack of healthcare authorisation and institutional accreditation, covered by external administrative res judicata).

The principle of unjust enrichment, established by art. 2041 of the Civil Code, provides that whoever has received a benefit without legal justification must return it. However, in this specific case, the Court of Cassation clarified that, in the absence of authorisation and accreditation, the enrichment of the PA cannot be considered legitimate. This implies that the healthcare facility is not entitled to claim compensation, as it was not legally authorised to provide such services.

Practical consequences of the judgment

This ordinance has significant repercussions for healthcare facilities, as it highlights the importance of always operating in compliance with current accreditation regulations. The practical consequences can be summarised as follows:

• Need for constant verification of accreditation for healthcare facilities.
• Impossibility of claiming compensation for services provided without authorisation.
• Risk of legal action against non-accredited facilities operating illegally.

In summary, ordinance no. 16980 of 2024 offers an important clarification on unjust enrichment in the healthcare sector, emphasising the need for compliance with accreditation regulations for healthcare services. The decision of the Court of Cassation serves as a warning to facilities operating in the healthcare sector, highlighting the importance of legal and compliant management of their activities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the analysed judgment not only clarifies the concept of unjust enrichment in the healthcare sector but also serves as a guide for facilities seeking to avoid irregular situations. It is essential for PAs and healthcare facilities to pay attention to accreditation regulations to protect themselves from potential legal problems and ensure quality service to citizens.