Order No. 18285 of 2024: Automatic Interruption of Proceedings in Case of Bankruptcy

The recent order of the Court of Cassation No. 18285 of July 4, 2024, offers an important reflection on procedural dynamics in the event of the bankruptcy of a party involved in a civil proceeding. The order in question clarifies that the interruption of the proceedings is automatic in the presence of bankruptcy, but it also establishes some fundamental criteria for the running of the terms for resumption. This article aims to analyze the key points of the ruling and its practical implications.

Automatic Interruption of Proceedings: What the Law Provides

According to Article 43, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy Law, in the event of the opening of bankruptcy for one of the parties, the proceedings are automatically interrupted. This means that the trial cannot continue until certain legal actions are taken, namely the resumption of the proceedings itself. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the term for the resumption or continuation of the proceedings runs not from mere knowledge of the bankruptcy event, but from the judicial declaration of the interruption.

In general. In the case of the opening of bankruptcy for one of the parties in a civil trial, the interruption of the proceedings is automatic, pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy Law, but the term for the related resumption or continuation runs from the moment when the judicial declaration of the interruption itself is brought to the attention of each party and, therefore, from the pronouncement in the hearing or from the notification of the relevant provision to the parties and the trustee by one of the interested parties or ex officio, remaining irrelevant for this purpose other forms of knowledge that the parties may have had of the interruptive event. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled the contested provision that had started the term for resumption from the notification of a request for an advance hearing in which the intervening bankruptcy of the party was cited.).

The Implications of the Ruling for Civil Proceedings

This ruling has important implications for the management of civil proceedings in which bankruptcy occurs. In particular, it highlights that:

  • The term for resumption runs only from the official pronouncement of the interruption.
  • Any informal or unofficial knowledge of the bankruptcy does not influence the running of the term.
  • The parties must be officially informed of the situation in order to proceed legally.

This position of the Court of Cassation aligns with the general principles of civil procedural law, which requires that the parties are always informed clearly and accurately regarding the state of the proceedings.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 18285 of 2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification regarding the interruption of proceedings following bankruptcy. It emphasizes the necessity of formal knowledge of the interruptive event for the correct running of the resumption terms, avoiding confusion and possible abuses. This decision provides a clearer legal framework for the parties involved and for legal practitioners, thus contributing to ensuring greater certainty in the Italian legal system.

Bianucci Law Firm