For insult to a lawyer, liquidated damages do not follow the tables
According to the Supreme Court, damages for insult are characterised by the singularity and peculiarities of the concrete case
A lawyer claims compensation for damages suffered as a result of insulting remarks made against him during a hearing in a civil case. At first instance he was awarded, by way of compensation for damages for insult, a sum of one thousand euros and at second instance a sum of eight thousand euros. In the court of legitimacy, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Cassation 14 May 2026, no. 14139) cancels the sentence precisely in terms of the criteria for quantifying non-asset damage.
The absence of tables
In the matter of damage to honour or reputation, in fact, there are no official national tables, as is currently provided for by presidential decree no. 12/2025 on the subject of biological and moral damage deriving from the circulation of vehicles and boats or from medical activities (the Tun can, however, Tun can be used to quantify biological damage in all cases of personal injury, according to the Supreme Court's 8630/2026 decision), so that non-asset damage must be settled on an equitable basis (articles 1226 and 2056 of the Civil Code).
It is true that, on the subject of defamation by the press or by other means of mass communication, the Observatory on Civil Justice of the Court of Milan had drawn up a table (based on various parameters: subjective quality of the damaging party and of the injured party, nature of the conduct, means used, extent of the consequences, etc.). But, as the Supreme Court points out in its recent judgment, such criteria cannot be used for the different case of compensation for damage caused by insult, which is even more characterised by the singularity and peculiarities of the concrete case, both with reference to the manner of the unlawful act and with reference to the subjects involved and its gravity and diffuseness.
In other words, by using parameters for the liquidation of non-asset damage, the very basis of the equitable judgment would be undermined, which does not tolerate the application of rigid and uniform criteria, but postulates the prudent balancing of the various factors of probable impact on the damage actually suffered.
Reform and Equity Principle
One can agree with the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, which should make it possible to valorise theequitable principle in the liquidation of compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by insult.
