Order No. 18116 of 2024: Technical Consultant of the Party and Bankruptcy Curator

The recent order of the Court of Cassation No. 18116 of July 2, 2024, sheds light on important clarifications regarding the figure of the technical consultant of the party in the context of bankruptcy. This ruling, issued under the presidency of M. Ferro and with the rapporteur G. Dongiacomo, has questioned the categorization of the professional appointed by the bankruptcy curator, highlighting the differences between the role of consultant and that of coadjutor.

The Context of the Ruling

The dispute began with a civil proceeding in which S. (C. D.) opposed F. (T. V.), raising issues regarding the powers and responsibilities of the bankruptcy curator. The Court had to determine whether the work performed by the professional could be classified as a professional service commission or if it should fall under the duties of the coadjutor, according to the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 2, of the bankruptcy law.

Technical consultant of the party - Appointed by the curator - Figure of the coadjutor - Exclusion - Professional service commission - Existence. The work performed by the professional at the request of the bankruptcy curator, in the capacity of technical consultant of the party in a civil proceeding, falls outside the role of the coadjutor as defined in Article 32, paragraph 2, of the bankruptcy law and rather fits into that of a genuine professional service.

Analysis of the Decision

The Court established that the activity of the technical consultant of the party cannot be assimilated to that of the coadjutor, as the latter operates in a context of assistance to the curatorial body, with specific limitations and prescriptions. In contrast, the technical consultant of the party carries out an autonomous professional activity aimed at providing technical and specialized support in a civil proceeding. This distinction is fundamental, as it entails differences in terms of responsibilities, rights, and obligations of the professional.

  • The technical consultant of the party acts at the request of the curator, but their function is of a professional and independent nature.
  • The coadjutor, on the other hand, is bound to specific tasks and cannot exercise professional activity independently.
  • The ruling also clarifies the economic implications of such assignments, with significant consequences on the fees owed.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18116 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the roles within the bankruptcy proceeding. The clear distinction between the technical consultant of the party and the coadjutor not only provides greater legal certainty but also ensures greater transparency in professional relationships. Legal practitioners must pay particular attention to these differences to avoid confusion and ensure the proper conduct of proceedings. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and it is essential to stay updated on developments in the field of bankruptcy.

Bianucci Law Firm