Equitable redress for long delays in justice also for large companies

The judge cannot deny by default the equitable reparation provided by the Pinto law to large companies, based only on the insignificance of the stakes compared to turnover. The Court of Cassation (sentence 31809/2025) upheld the appeal against the Court of Appeal's rejection of the reparation provided for by Law 89/2001, for a bankruptcy procedure that had exceeded the 7-year limit. A duration that had damaged the interests of the plaintiffs, who were included in the liabilities of the bankrupt company.

The territorial court had, however, considered the Ministry of Justice's arguments to be well-founded and had annulled the decree by which the relief had been awarded at first instance. For the Court of Merit, the prejudice was non-existent, due to the insignificance of the claim, also assessed in relation to the personal circumstances of the parties. A verdict, justified by the territorial court, numbers in hand. The companies seeking equitable relief were very large and leaders in their fields. The claim admitted to the liabilities was, in one case, EUR 35,863.30, equal to 0.16% of the share capital, 0.01% of the 2022 turnover and 0.03% of the net assets. The proportions were not very different in the other case, in which there was a claim admitted to the liabilities of €19,546.31, corresponding to 0.10% of the share capital, 0.02% of the turnover 2022 and 0.03% of the net assets.

The two companies had therefore given an untrue representation of reality, 'in that the credit of each of them, if compared to the consolidated financial position of the same, appeared insignificant and incapable of causing the slightest emotional distress to the corporate bodies'. In addition, 'the credits were unsecured and therefore satisfied to a very low degree, so as to be of minimal importance for the respective assets inasmuch as they were incapable of modifying them to any appreciable extent'.

The judges of legitimacy, on the contrary, upheld the applicants' argument, against a reasoning at odds with the concept of "insignificance" developed by the European Court of Human Rights itself, according to which the absence of significant prejudice could be found in cases in which the amount was equal to or less than approximately EUR 500. A threshold that does not, however, have the purpose "of rendering the delay non-compensable for capitalised subjects, but the opposite purpose of making the claim for compensation for the unreasonable duration of trials of modest value assessable for the majority of citizens, in order to allow proof contrary to the presumption of non-compensability".

And the Supreme Court gives an example of a trial for a trivial sum of money. In Bock v. Germany, the plaintiff complained about the length of proceedings he had brought to have the cost of a food supplement reimbursed, totalling EUR 7.99. The European Court, taking into account that the plaintiff was a civil servant with a monthly salary of more than EUR 4,500, excluded the stakes.