Commentary on Order No. 18232 of 2024: Res Judicata and Guarantees

The recent Order No. 18232 of July 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides insights into the effectiveness of res judicata and its application concerning guarantees. With a particular focus on the identity of the parties and the requirements of "petitum" and "causa petendi," the ruling clarifies the limits within which res judicata can be invoked, highlighting the importance of considering the diversity of the objects of judgment.

The Legal Context of the Ruling

The Court, presided over by C. De Chiara and reported by M. Marulli, addressed a crucial issue: the authority of substantive res judicata operates only within the strict limits of the constitutive elements of the action. Specifically, it is necessary that the cases in question share not only the parties but also the "petitum" and the "causa petendi."

(PRECLUSIONS) Requirements - Identity of parties - "Petitum" and "causa petendi" - Necessity - Case law. The authority of substantive res judicata operates only within the strict limits of the constitutive elements of the action and presupposes, therefore, that the previous case and the current one have in common, in addition to the parties, also the "petitum" and the "causa petendi," remaining irrelevant, for this purpose, the eventual identity of the legal or factual issues to be examined in order to reach the decision. (In this case, the Supreme Court excluded that the res judicata on the effectiveness of a guarantee, formed in another process, between the creditor and one of the guarantors, had effects on the revocation action brought by the creditor concerning a donation made by another guarantor, due to the diversity of the object of that judgment and the presence, in it, of a party foreign to the previous proceeding).

The Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant implications for creditors and guarantors involved in guarantee processes. In particular, it clarifies that a res judicata relating to the effectiveness of a guarantee in one process does not affect a revocation action concerning a donation made by another guarantor. This is because the judgments are different and the parties involved are not the same.

  • Identity of the parties: it is essential that the same parties are involved in both actions.
  • Petitum and causa petendi: they must be identical to invoke res judicata.
  • Object of the judgment: the diversity of the object prevents the application of the effectiveness of res judicata.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 18232 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding res judicata and guarantees. The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the necessity of adhering to fundamental requirements for the authority of res judicata to be applied. Legal professionals must pay particular attention to these aspects to ensure the proper management of disputes, avoiding misunderstandings and legal conflicts arising from a misinterpretation of res judicata.

Bianucci Law Firm