Cassazione Civile - Ordinanza n. 03553/2026

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The issue involved the alleged failure of the appellate court to examine a decisive fact in the reconventional claim under Code of Civil Procedure article 360, number 5. The court found that the lower court had considered the relevant facts and that the motivation was sufficient, thus no procedural error was committed.
• The court examined whether the lower courts violated the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.) articles 115 and 116 by admitting testimonial evidence beyond the permitted scope under Civil Code articles 2721 and 2722. The decision highlights that the admission of testimonial evidence is a matter of the judge's discretion and is not reviewable in cassation if properly motivated.
• The issue centered on the essentiality of the deadline for completing the work under Civil Code articles 1457 and 1460. The court determined that the essentiality of a deadline must be clearly established through the contract's nature and the parties' explicit intent, and the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate such essentiality.
• The court addressed the procedural correctness of modifying cost allocation between parties under Code of Civil Procedure articles 91 and 92. It ruled that the cost distribution was valid, as the losing party (Solema) was correctly held responsible for the costs of both parties, including those of the third party (Profel).
• The court assessed the adequacy of the creditor's proof under Civil Code article 1657, considering the use of oral and documentary evidence. It concluded that the creditor's claim was valid based on the execution of the works and the reliability of the testimonies and documents presented.

Holdings

• Il terzo motivo è infondato perché la Corte ha accertato il credito sulla base di prove orali e documentali, e la scelta di non richiedere una c.t.u. rientra nell'apprezzamento del giudice.
• Il quarto motivo è inammissibile per preclusione e per l'assenza di un fatto storico decisivo non esaminato, in quanto la motivazione della Corte d'appello era sufficiente e conforme alla giurisprudenza.
• Il primo motivo è infondato poiché la Corte ha ritenuto che l'inciso sulla inammissibilità della prova testimoniale fosse un mero obiter dictum e ha confermato che l'apprezzamento delle risultanze istruttorie non è sindacabile in sede di legittimità.
• Il quinto motivo è inammissibile perché la liquidazione delle spese a favore di Profel e Demer è stata correttamente riformulata, e la ricorrente non ha interesse a lamentarsene visto il vantaggio risultante.
• Il secondo motivo è infondato in quanto la Corte ha chiarito che l'essenzialità del termine pattuito non è stata provata, e l'uso continuo dell'impianto da parte della ricorrente contraddice la sua tesi.

Remedies

• The appellant (Solemà S.N.C.) is ordered to reimburse the respondent (Demer Impianti S.R.L.) for court costs, including 3.000,00 in compensi, 200,00 in esborsi, 15% general expenses on compensi, and legal accessories.
• The Court rejects the appeal filed by Solemà S.N.C. and upholds the lower court's decision.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the principle that the essentiality of a contractual term must be proven based on the contract's nature and parties' intent, not merely on formulaic language like 'entro e non oltre'. This was supported by references to Cass. n. 25549/2007 and n. 10353/2020.
• The court affirmed that the admissibility of testimonial evidence beyond statutory value limits is within the judge's discretion, provided the decision is properly motivated. This aligns with principles established in cases like Cass. n. 21411/2022 and n. 190/2020.
• The burden to prove the debt rested on the creditor, and the court found sufficient evidence in oral and documentary proofs, including historical hourly rates and executed work. This was validated via Cass. SU n. 3086/2022 and n. 19631/2020.
• The court applied costs principles to assign legal expenses to the fully unsuccessful party (Solema) in both trial and appellate courts, including third-party (Profel) costs. This was grounded in Cass. n. 7431/2012 and the rule of soccombenza.

Precedent Name

• Cass. n. 14426/2016
• Cass. n. 12515/2028
• Cass. n. 10353/2020
• Cass. n. 7431/2012
• Cass. n. 32238/2019
• Cass. n. 19631/2020
• Cass. SU n. 3086/2022
• Cass. n. 21411/2022
• Cass. n. 11889/2007
• Cass. SU n. 8053/2014
• Cass. n. 190/2020
• Cass. n. 25549/2007

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The parties disputed whether the contractual deadline of 10/10/2009 for completing the electrical filter installation was 'essential' under the Civil Code, determining if Solema's failure to meet it justified contract termination and damages.
• The court examined the validity of the claimed €19,411.45 contractual price for the electrical works, with Solema arguing for a lower amount and Demer relying on oral evidence and historical rates to justify the higher sum.

Cited Statute

• Codice Civile (c.c.)
• Codice di Procedura Civile (c.p.c.)

Judge Name

• Linalisa Cavallino
• Remo Caponi

Passage Text

• 2.1. Il motivo è infondato.
• 1.1. Il primo motivo è infondato.
• 3.1. Il motivo è infondato.

Damages / Relief Type