Tra ‘vera aestimatio litis’ e ‘quantum de ea re aequum visum fuerit’: sulla condanna del ‘iudex qui litem suam fecit’

This essay aims to review the results of the debate on the features of the 'condemnatio' belonging to the formula of the 'actio adversus iudicem qui litem suam fecit', bearing in mind the alleged clash between Gai. 3 'rer. cott.' D. 50.13.6 (later taken up almost entirely by I. 4.5 pr. and, in part, by D. 44.7.5.4) and Ulp. 21[23] 'ad ed.' D. 5.1.15.1: in the first case, in fact, the amount is stated according to the 'quantum (bonum et) aequum', while, in the second, stands out the 'vera aestimatio litis'. Looking back at the approaches since the nineteenth century, the edictal reconstruction conceived by Otto Lenel deserves to be preferred to the others and further evidences are brought to its enduring validity. Finally, it is also denied that the quantification of the penalty in the case of litem suam facere represented the historical example of ‘punitive damages’, whose infliction is still widespread in Anglo-Saxon legal systems.