Opposition to Enforcement Acts: Analysis of Order No. 19932/2024

The recent Order No. 19932 of July 19, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the discipline of opposition to enforcement acts, highlighting not only the deadlines to be met but also the burdens of pleading and proof incumbent upon the opponent. In an ever-evolving legal context, understanding the implications of this ruling is crucial for anyone involved in forced execution procedures.

Context of the Ruling

The case in question involves M. (C.) against B. (C.), where the Court of Catania had declared the opposition filed by M. inadmissible. The Court deemed the opposition to be late, as it was filed two years after the first request for access to the documents, without the opponent providing proof of the reasons for their defensive inertia.

Timeliness of Opposition - Burden of Pleading and Proof on the Opponent – Necessity - Factual Situation. In the matter of opposition to enforcement acts, pursuant to art. 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the opponent has the burden of indicating and proving the moment they had legal or de facto knowledge of the enforcement act they deem flawed, as otherwise it is impossible to verify whether they have complied with the forfeiture period for filing the opposition. (In the present case, concerning the appeal of an order for the continuation of sale operations, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed judgment which had deemed the opposition filed two years after the first request for access to the documents, which occurred after the issuance of the original sale order, to be late, as the appellant had not proven the reasons for their defensive inertia).

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling clarifies some fundamental issues for those who need to file oppositions to enforcement acts:

• Burden of Proof: The opponent must demonstrate the moment of knowledge of the enforcement act, whether legal or de facto.
• Strict Timelines: It is essential to respect the forfeiture periods, otherwise the opposition risks being declared inadmissible.
• Defensive Inertia: The lack of action by the opponent must be justified, otherwise late justifications cannot be accepted.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 19932 of 2024 represents an important guide for managing oppositions to enforcement acts. The Court of Cassation has reiterated the principle of timeliness, emphasizing that knowledge of the acts and adherence to deadlines are crucial elements for ensuring a fair trial. To avoid surprises during the enforcement phase, it is essential for interested parties to seek advice from expert lawyers who can provide adequate guidance on how to proceed in such circumstances.