THE PROBLEM OF TRIVIAL DAMAGES IN ITALY AND THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE INSTRUMENTS TO COMPENSATION

Abstract

 Contextualization: The article addresses the persistent and unresolved problem of low-value non-pecuniary harm, the so-called "bagatelle damages" (or trivial damages), in the Italian legal system. The central issue is the difficulty in finding adequate instruments to remedy these damages without overloading or paralyzing the judicial system with what is seen as an abuse of jurisdiction. The article criticizes the introduction of filters (such as the severity of the injury) by Italian jurisprudence , an approach that has been contradicted by the clear jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially concerning the protection of personal data.

Objectives: The main objective of the article is to highlight the necessity of identifying and valuing alternative remedies to the traditional model of monetary compensation. Specifically, it seeks to analyze the opportunity to resort to forms of civil protection of the individual that are already provided for but little utilized in the Italian legal system, such as the publication of the judgment of conviction , and to propose, de iure condendo (from the perspective of future law), the formal introduction of reparatory measures that are substitutive of monetary compensation

Methodology: The article employs a methodology of legal analysis and comparative law , contrasting the inconsistencies (aporias) of the Italian system with the solutions and trends adopted in other legal systems, particularly in supranational courts (the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union). The approach involves criticizing internal jurisprudence , reinterpreting provisions of the Italian Civil Code (such as arts. 2057 and 2058) to favor reparation in kind (specific performance) , and analyzing sectoral regulations (such as the Consumer Code and the GDPR) that already foresee non-monetary forms of compensation.

Results: The results of the analysis indicate the superiority and preferability of alternative and rapid measures to guarantee the legitimate claims of the injured parties and the respect for legal rules, without compromising the functionality of the judicial system. The article concludes that the publication of the judgment of conviction can take on a central role, with a reparatory, preventive, and social deterrent function , and that the decisions of the supranational Courts confirm the possibility of fully compensating non-pecuniary damage, even if trivial, through alternative or symbolic instruments, such as public apologies or minimum compensation. The final suggestion is the formal introduction of substitutive measures, inspired by penal restorative justice, to foster responsibility and substantive justice.