Commentary on Judgment No. 22806 of 2024: Notifications and Validity of Judicial Acts

Judgment No. 22806 of August 13, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the subject of notifications in civil matters. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the validity of notified acts performed without the requirements provided by law, clarifying the crucial distinction between non-existence and nullity, with significant consequences for the parties involved.

The Issue of Notification and Legal Requirements

The Court examined a situation where the notification of an act, in this specific case a decree setting a hearing in an electoral dispute, had been carried out through the Carabinieri. The central element of the issue was whether such notification, carried out without the legal requirements, could be considered non-existent or merely void.

Notification of an act performed without the required elements - Non-existence - Exclusion - Nullity - Consequences - Validation through achievement of purpose - Case concerning notification via the Carabinieri. The notification of an act performed without the requirements prescribed by law, but still recognizable as a notification activity, is not non-existent, but void and, therefore, can be validated by achieving its purpose, through the proper and timely appearance of the summoned party. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed decision, which had declared the notification of the decree setting a hearing in an electoral dispute, carried out through the Carabinieri, to be void and not non-existent, given that they are judicial police officers who, possessing notification and certification powers in criminal matters, had the legal possibility to perform such activity).

Impacts of the Judgment on Legal Practice

The decision of the Court of Cassation clarifies that a notification, even if lacking the required formal requirements, is not to be considered non-existent, but void. This aspect has important practical implications, as it allows for the possibility of rectifying the situation through the timely appearance of the summoned party. In this way, the legal system proves to be flexible, allowing for the substantial purposes of notification to be achieved, even in the presence of formal defects.

Furthermore, the judgment refers to several articles of the Code of Civil Procedure, including:

• Article 83: Regarding the notification of acts;
• Article 156: On nullities related to form;
• Article 160: Concerning notification deadlines;
• Article 137: Which governs the notification of acts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 22806 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding notifications in civil matters. The distinction between nullity and non-existence of notified acts is fundamental, as it directly affects the protection of the parties' rights. The possibility of validating a void notification, through the timely appearance of the summoned party, offers further guarantees of justice and efficiency in civil proceedings, preventing formal defects from compromising substantial rights. Lawyers and legal professionals should take these indications into account in their daily practice, to ensure proper management of notifications and legal proceedings.