Sommario: 

1. Introduzione: la sentenza C. cost. n. 94/2017, come punto di partenza di un ragionamento induttivo.

2. Il termine di decadenza previsto dall’art.30 c.p.a.: decadenza o prescrizione?

2.1. Il risarcimento del danno in caso di provvedimento illegittimo favorevole: risarcimento o indennizzo?

2.2. L’azione di risarcimento alla luce del principio, anche comunitario, di effettività della tutela giurisdizionale. 

3. Il dubbio di un nuovo diritto finanziariamente condizionato.

Abstract:

The article deals with the action of compensation for damages deriving from the violation of legitimate interests. The analysis starts from the judgement of the Italian Constitutional Court 4th May 2017, n. 94, which recognized that article 30, c. 3, of the Codice del processo amministrativo is consistent with the
Italian Constitution. After some preliminary considerations on prescription and limitation in civil law, the article argues that civil categories should be overcome. Indeed, in some cases it is more appropriate to consider the compensation as an indemnification as, for example, when a private claims damages for a public measure that is unfavourable towards him but legitimate. Furthermore, when the action to obtain compensation for damages is proposed after the one for annulment of the public measure, the limitation appears to be a prescription. Following the problems regarding the effectiveness of the measure, even in the European context, the article ends raising doubts that the right of compensation should be influenced by financial restrictions. The Constitutional Court indeed stated that the reason for a limitation period is to consolidate national budgets.