Order No. 10139 of 2024: Clarifications on the Suspension of Procedural Terms During the Covid-19 Emergency

The recent order no. 10139 of April 15, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important interpretation regarding the suspension of civil procedural terms during the Covid-19 health emergency. This provision is crucial for understanding how procedural terms were managed in an emergency context and for ensuring the right to defense of the defendants.

The Regulatory Context of the Suspension

Article 83, paragraph 2, of Decree Law No. 18 of 2020 provided for the suspension of procedural terms due to the epidemiological emergency. However, the Court clarified that when a procedural term retroactively intersects, even partially, with the suspension period, the term itself must run entirely from the moment of the cessation of the suspension until the date of the subsequent hearing.

  • Start of the terms: must occur from the cessation of the suspension.
  • Postponement of the hearing: a judicial provision is necessary.
  • Nullity of the renewal order: cannot be remedied, as it does not concern a nullity of the vocatio in ius.

Analysis of the Maxim and Practical Implications

In general. Regarding the suspension of civil procedural terms imposed, due to the epidemiological emergency from Covid-19, by Article 83, paragraph 2, of Decree Law No. 18 of 2020, if the running of a procedural term retroactively (in this case, the term to appear for the defendant with the summons) intersects, even minimally, with the pandemic suspension period, said term must run, in its entirety, from the moment of the cessation of the suspension until the date of the subsequent hearing, and for this purpose, a judicial provision for the postponement of the hearing must be issued and not an order for the renewal of the notification which, if issued, is affected by nullity, as it does not concern remedying nonexistent nullities of the vocatio in ius but rather ensuring the defendant the fullness of the term for defense.

This maxim emphasizes the importance of ensuring the right to defense. In fact, the provision for postponing the hearing is essential to ensure that the defendant can fully exercise their right to defense, without being penalized by the suspension of terms. The mistake of issuing an order for the renewal of the notification would therefore result in the nullity of the provision, as it cannot remedy a situation of inadequate protection of the rights of the defendant.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 10139 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of procedural rights during emergency situations. It highlights how jurisprudence is called upon to balance the needs of the functionality of the judicial system with the fundamental right to defense, ensuring that procedural terms are managed fairly and justly. It is essential for legal professionals to consider these indications to ensure the correct application of the rules during and after periods of health emergencies.

Bianucci Law Firm