Order No. 19651 of 2024: Analysis of Violation of Law and Subsumption in Civil Proceedings

The recent Order No. 19651 of July 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought for legal professionals, particularly regarding defects of violation of law and the correct subsumption of legal provisions. This ruling is part of an appeal to the Court of Cassation and focuses on how to distinguish between the violation of legal norms and the deficient reconstruction of facts.

Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, the appellant, P. D., appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal of Sassari, arguing that the lower court judge had erred in evaluating the evidence. The Court of Cassation, however, upheld the decision, highlighting the distinguishing criteria between an error of subsumption and a contradictory reconstruction of the facts. This is a crucial point, as the Court clarifies that the factual findings must remain firm and undisputed.

Defect of violation of law pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for defect of subsumption - Deficient or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case - Distinguishing criteria. The defect of violation of law (art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure) for erroneous subsumption is distinguished from the deficient or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case, which is not subject to review on appeal, because it presupposes that the factual findings made by the lower court judge are considered firm and undisputed, and the complaint pertains, in fact, to the erroneous recognition of the abstract legal provision, without contesting the evaluation of the evidence.

Distinction Between Defect of Subsumption and Reconstruction of Facts

The Court of Cassation emphasized a fundamental aspect: the defect of violation of law due to erroneous subsumption is distinct from the deficient or contradictory reconstruction of the concrete case. The latter is not subject to review on appeal, as it is based on factual findings that the lower court judge has already established. Therefore, the appellant cannot challenge the evaluation of the evidence, but only the application of the law to the specific case.

• A defect of violation of law implies an incorrect application of the law.
• A deficiency in the reconstruction of facts is a defect that cannot be reviewed by the Court of Cassation.
• It is essential that the lower court judge has made firm and undisputed factual findings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 19651 of 2024 represents an important guide for understanding the differences between the various types of defects that can arise in civil proceedings. The clarity with which the Court of Cassation sets out the distinguishing criteria is fundamental to ensuring the correct application of the law and the effective protection of citizens' rights. Legal professionals should pay particular attention to these indications to avoid errors in formulating appeals and to improve the effectiveness of their arguments.