The bank must compensate the account holder for the stress endured due to the delay in crediting the account of a bank transfer of over 200 thousand euros. The size of the sum alone is enough, in fact, to demonstrate the heartache. The Court of Cassation (judgment 24643) rejects the appeal of the credit institution, sentenced to compensate non-material damage to a customer who had waited for more than a month, from the date of the transfer order, that more than 200 thousand euros. According to the bank, the law had to prove the “sensitive heartache” at the basis of the non-pecuniary damage, as required by law, through “more serious, precise and consistent presumptions”. While in the case examined the Court of Appeal had affirmed the existence of the prejudice based on a single presumption: the fact that the transfer concerned a large sum.
Breach of contract
For the Supreme Court, however, the judgment is correct. Non-pecuniary damage, understood as subjective suffering – underline the judges of legitimacy – falls into the category of non-pecuniary damage and can certainly derive from a breach of contract “which prejudices an inviolable right of the person”. Those who ask for “refreshment” must prove, even through simple presumptions, the prejudice suffered. And the Supreme Court specifies that “it is not necessary that between the known fact and the unknown one there is a link of absolute and exclusive causal necessity, but it is sufficient that the fact to be proved can be inferred from the known fact as a reasonably possible consequence, according to a criterion of normality that can be inferred by rules of experience “. In the case examined, the bank’s delay caused the client to sleepless nights and induced him to use psychotropic drugs. For the judge a serious and precise presumption. It is therefore useful as “the only source of conviction”.