Commentary on Judgment No. 9680 of 2024: Opposition to the Injunction Order and Judicial Competence

Judgment No. 9680 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on functional competence regarding opposition to injunction orders. In an ever-evolving legal context, it is essential to analyze the implications of this ruling, which aligns with current regulations and established jurisprudence.

The Regulatory Context

The injunction order, governed by Article 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a quick tool for debt recovery. However, the possibility of opposing such an order is equally relevant, as it allows the recipient to defend themselves and contest the creditor's claims. The judgment in question clarifies that the opposition is not subject to the binding functional competence of the execution judge but is structured according to the general provisions established for this procedure.

The Consequences of the Judgment

In particular, the Court establishes that:

  • The introductory act of opposition must be registered in the general register of contentious cases of the competent judicial office.
  • Functional competence is determined based on the distribution tables of cases, as established by Article 7 bis of Royal Decree No. 12 of 1941.
  • The designation of the magistrate performing the functions of the execution judge is legitimate, even if it is the same judge who issued the opposed order.
IUS SUPERVENIENS - EXECUTION PROCESS Generally. The opposition to the injunction order issued under Article 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure - for which no binding functional competence of the execution judge is provided - is regulated by the general provisions for the opposition procedure to injunction orders and therefore falls within the functional competence of the judicial office to which the execution judge belongs; consequently, the related introductory act must be registered in the general register of contentious cases of that office, and the procedure must be assigned based on the criteria established by the distribution tables of cases under Article 7 bis of Royal Decree No. 12 of 1941, which may legitimately also provide for the designation of a magistrate performing the functions of the execution judge or even the same judge who issued the opposed order, without direct relevance to the validity of the acts of the procedure.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 9680 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the regulatory clarity concerning opposition to injunction orders. It confirms the importance of efficient and coherent judicial management, while ensuring the right of defense for the parties involved. Legal practitioners and professionals should pay particular attention to these provisions to ensure the correct application of the law and, ultimately, fair and timely justice.

Bianucci Law Firm