Commentary on Judgment No. 9680 of 2024: Opposition to a Payment Order and Judicial Jurisdiction

Judgment No. 9680 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on functional jurisdiction in matters of opposition to payment orders. In an ever-evolving legal landscape, it is crucial to analyze the implications of this ruling, which aligns with current legislation and established case law.

The Regulatory Framework

The payment order, governed by Article 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a swift tool for debt recovery. However, the possibility of opposing such an order is equally significant, as it allows the recipient to defend themselves and contest the creditor's claims. The judgment in question clarifies that opposition is not subject to the exclusive functional jurisdiction of the enforcement judge, but rather is structured according to the general provisions for such proceedings.

Consequences of the Judgment

Specifically, the Court establishes that:

• The initiating document for the opposition must be registered in the general roll of contentious matters of the competent judicial office.
• Functional jurisdiction is determined based on the allocation tables for cases, as established by Article 7-bis of Royal Decree No. 12 of 1941.
• The designation of the magistrate performing the functions of the enforcement judge is legitimate, even if it is the same judge who issued the opposed order.

IUS SUPERVENIENS - ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS In general. Opposition to a payment order issued pursuant to Article 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure – for which no exclusive and non-derogable functional jurisdiction of the enforcement judge is provided – is governed by the general provisions for opposition proceedings to a payment order and therefore falls within the functional jurisdiction of the judicial office to which the enforcement judge belongs; consequently, the relevant initiating document must be registered in the general roll of contentious matters of that office, and the proceeding must be assigned based on the criteria established by the case allocation tables pursuant to Article 7-bis of Royal Decree No. 12 of 1941, which may legitimately provide for the designation of a magistrate performing the functions of the enforcement judge or, even, the same judge who issued the opposed order, without direct relevance to the validity of the procedural acts.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 9680 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in regulatory clarity regarding opposition to payment orders. It confirms the importance of efficient and consistent judicial management, while simultaneously safeguarding the right of defense for the parties involved. Legal practitioners and professionals should pay close attention to these provisions to ensure the correct application of the law and, ultimately, fair and timely justice.