Commentary on Judgment No. 9670 of 2024: Release of the Property and Executive Title

The recent order No. 9670 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights into the matter of forced real estate execution. The central issue concerns the nature of the order for the release of the seized property and its legal consequences for the parties involved.

The Regulatory Context

The Court expressed its views on the provision set forth in Article 560, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, amended by Decree Law No. 59 of 2016 and Law No. 119 of 2016. According to these provisions, the order for release is not considered an independent executive title, but rather an act within the process of real estate expropriation. This implies that it cannot be used to initiate a separate execution for release.

  • The release of the property is an act that must follow the procedures provided by the executive process.
  • The parties prejudiced by the order of release can protect their rights through opposition to executive acts, as provided by Article 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • This approach aims to prevent abuses and ensure that the rights of debtors are respected during forced execution.

The Maxim of the Judgment

The provision whereby the execution judge, pursuant to Article 560, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Decree Law No. 59 of 2016, converted with modifications by Law No. 119 of 2016, orders the release of the seized property does not constitute an independent executive title suitable for founding a separate execution for release, but rather an act of the real estate expropriation process susceptible to informal implementation directly by the auxiliaries of the judge who issued it, with the consequence that the parties involved or prejudiced by such provision can find protection of their rights exclusively through the forms of opposition to executive acts.

This maxim clarifies that, although the order for release may seem like a simple provision, it requires a correct interpretation by all actors involved in the executive process. In fact, debtors and third parties who believe they have been harmed by such an order have specific defensive tools at their disposal.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important point of reference for legal practitioners and citizens involved in forced execution procedures. It is essential to understand that the order for release should not be underestimated and that it is possible to oppose its effect through appropriate legal avenues. In this context, legal advice becomes crucial to ensure that the rights of all parties involved are adequately protected.

Bianucci Law Firm