The Supreme Court’s Civil United Sections issued sentence n. 24599/2026, clarifying how the limitation period for compensation claims works when the harmful act is also a crime.
Civil and criminal limitation periods do not automatically align
Article 2947, paragraph 3 of the Italian Civil Code permits the longer criminal limitation term to apply to a civil claim for damages. The ruling stresses that this does not transfer the entire criminal prescription scheme to the civil sphere.
The Court reminded that interruptions of the civil limitation are governed by articles 2943‑2945, which do not list criminal‑prescription interruptions as causes. Consequently, an act that halts the criminal clock does not, by itself, stop the civil clock.
In practice, the general rule is that a criminal‑prescription interrupting act does not affect the civil claim’s limitation period.
Related: Italy updates NIS 2 guidance on compliance
When the victim joins the criminal proceeding as a civil party
A key departure arises when the injured party elects to pursue compensation within the criminal trial, becoming a civil party. In that situation, it found that criminal‑prescription interruptions can also pause the civil limitation.
The reasoning follows the procedural structure: a victim cannot become a civil party at any stage; the opportunity appears only at a specific phase of the criminal process. Recognising a civil claim at that point while allowing the underlying criminal claim to remain active would otherwise let the civil claim expire before the victim could formally join.
In the case examined, it granted the interruption effect to the order setting the hearing on the request to archive the case, thereby protecting the claim.
Even with this exception, the tribunal reiterated that civil prescription remains an exception under article 2938 and must be raised by the defendant or civilly liable party. Judges cannot apply it on their own initiative.
Related: Company director accused of fraudulent bankruptcy spending
Thus, its limitation does not merge with the criminal one; the interruption merely adapts to the circumstance of a civil claim lodged inside the criminal docket.
From a practical standpoint, this means victims who act within the criminal trial gain a safeguard against losing their compensation right while waiting for the procedural window to open. It does not, however, create a permanent fusion of the two limitation regimes.
Separate civil trial after referral under article 622 c.p.p.
The trial proceeds independently.
The decision also addressed the nature of the civil proceeding that follows a referral under article 622 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court rejected the view that the civil phase is a mere continuation of the criminal judgment.
