5 Common Errors in Challenging the Violation of Article 112 CPC in Italy

1. 1.

   1. Confusion between Art. 112 and Art. 360 no. 5 c.p.c.

   This is the most common structural error. Many appellants challenge the failure to examine a document or an evidentiary circumstance as a lack of decision. However, the technical distinction is sharp: Art. 112 c.p.c. concerns the failure to rule on a claim or a merit-based defense (primary facts). Conversely, Art. 360 no. 5 c.p.c. concerns the failure to examine a decisive historical fact (secondary facts). If a lawyer complains that the judge ignored an invoice, they must act under Art. 360 no. 5. If they complain that the judge failed to rule on a claim for damages, they must invoke Art. 360 no. 4 for violation of Art. 112 c.p.c. Choosing the wrong ground leads to inadmissibility.

2. 2.

   2. Violation of the Principle of Self-sufficiency

   With the digital regime fully operational in 2026, the Supreme Court is even more rigorous in requiring that the appeal specifies exactly where and how the claim was formulated. The error lies in merely stating that the issue was raised in the first instance without quoting the textual content of the claim and without indicating the document number or the index of the electronic file. As reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, Section II, no. 12695/2025, the flaw of omessa pronuncia must be alleged by precisely reporting the terms of the claim in the appeal, indicating the specific pleading and the hearing minutes. Failure to do so means the Court will not conduct an independent search through the records.

3. 3.

   3. Lack of Decision on Purely Procedural Issues

   Many practitioners allege a violation of Art. 112 cpc when the judge ignores a procedural objection, such as a defect in service or an objection regarding the admissibility of the appeal. However, established jurisprudence clarifies that the flaw of omessa pronuncia is only applicable to claims or merit-based defenses. The failure to examine a procedural issue does not constitute a violation of Art. 112 c.p.c. In these cases, the lawyer must challenge the decision not for lack of ruling, but for the violation of the specific procedural rule that the judge should have applied, such as Articles 163 or 342 c.p.c., depending on the identified flaw.

4. Apply this research directly with edit.legal

   Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. Try edit.legal for free, no credit card.

   Try edit.legal
   4.

   4. Ignoring Implicit Rejection and Absorption

   A common error is reporting a lack of ruling when the judge has, in fact, implicitly rejected the claim or considered it absorbed (assorbimento). For example, if the judge upholds a statute of limitations defense that extinguishes the entire right, they are not obliged to examine the merits of individual damage items. In this case, the decision on the merits is absorbed by the dismissal on the preliminary issue. The Supreme Court, in Order no. 14889/2025, declared a ground under Art. 112 inadmissible if the adopted decision is logically incompatible with the acceptance of the allegedly omitted claim. Implicit rejection always excludes a judicial failure to act.

5. 5.

   5. Error in Choosing the Grounds for Appeal

   Before the Supreme Court, the violation of Art. 112 c.p.c. must be asserted exclusively through Art. 360 no. 4 c.p.c., as it constitutes an error in procedendo (procedural error). A fatal mistake consists in invoking Art. 360 no. 3, which concerns the violation or false application of substantive law. The Court routinely declares the complaint inadmissible because the lack of judicial decision results in the nullity of the judgment due to a failure to act, rather than a misinterpretation of a substantive rule. Recent decisions from 2024 and 2026 confirm that the correct classification of the ground is an essential condition for the merits of the raised issue to be examined.

6. 6.

   6. Failure to Rule on Legal Costs

   A specific case noted in April 2026 by the Supreme Court no. 11247/2026 concerns the failure to rule on legal costs (spese processuali). Counsel often believe that a judge's oversight can be resolved through the procedure for correcting material errors. However, the Court reaffirmed that if the judge forgets to liquidate costs despite the mandate received, especially in a remand scenario, the remedy is not correction but challenging the judgment for violation of Art. 112 c.p.c. To support professionals in drafting impeccable pleadings, edit.legal offers access to verified sources and updated Supreme Court trends, with the possibility of requesting a free trial without entering credit card details.

References: Articolo 112 c.p.c.Articolo 360 c.p.c.Cassazione Civile n. 12695/2025Cassazione Civile n. 14889/2025Cassazione Civile n. 11247/2026Cassazione Civile n. 5823/2024

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 21 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction