Commentary on Order No. 10131 of 2024: Termination of the Judgment and Remedies in Cassation Matters

The recent Order No. 10131 of April 15, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the procedure for the accelerated decision of appeals for cassation under Article 380-bis of the Civil Procedure Code (c.p.c.). This ruling is situated within the context of the reform of civil proceedings introduced by Legislative Decree No. 149 of 2022 and emphasizes the consequences of failing to submit the request for a decision after the concise proposal for the resolution of the case.

The Regulatory Context and the Case

According to the Order, the failure to submit the request for a decision leads to the termination of the judgment, which implies that the judge must declare this termination by decree. In this specific case, the Court requalified a request for revocation of the termination order as an opposition pursuant to Article 391 c.p.c., subsequently declaring it inadmissible for failure to comply with the ten-day deadline from the communication of the termination order.

  • The concise proposal for resolution is a crucial step in the cassation procedure.
  • The ten-day deadline is peremptory, and its non-observance leads to the inadmissibility of the opposition.
  • The only remedy available against the termination decree is the opposition under Article 391 c.p.c.

The Ruling's Maxim and Its Significance

In general. In relation to the procedure for the accelerated decision of appeals for cassation under Article 380-bis c.p.c. (as amended by Legislative Decree No. 149 of 2022), the failure to submit, after the concise proposal for the resolution of the case, the request for a decision results in the termination of the judgment, which must be declared by decree, against which the only available remedy is the opposition pursuant to Article 391 c.p.c., to be submitted, under penalty of inadmissibility, within ten days from the communication of the termination order. (In this case, the Supreme Court requalified the request for revocation of the termination order as opposition under Article 391 c.p.c., declaring it inadmissible as it was submitted after the ten-day deadline).

This maxim highlights the importance of timeliness in resorting to legal remedies. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation reaffirms that adherence to procedural deadlines is fundamental, not only to ensure the effectiveness of the defense but also for the proper functioning of the legal system. The legislator aimed to streamline the process, but this implies that parties must be particularly vigilant and ready to submit their requests within the prescribed timeframes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 10131 of 2024 serves as an important guide for legal practitioners, clarifying the consequences of failing to submit the request for a decision in the context of cassation. The ruling reminds us that timeliness and precision in adhering to procedural deadlines are essential to avoid the termination of the judgment and ensure a fair trial. It is crucial for lawyers and parties involved in the proceedings to remain informed and prepared to meet legal deadlines to protect their rights.

Bianucci Law Firm