Commentary on Judgment No. 21300 of 30/07/2024: Jurisdiction in the Opposition Proceedings to an Injunction

The recent judgment No. 21300 of July 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Bologna, provides important clarifications regarding territorial jurisdiction in the context of opposition proceedings to an injunction. In particular, the Court addresses the issue of the opposing party's adherence to the objection of territorial incompetence, highlighting the procedural consequences and responsibilities regarding costs.

The Regulatory Context

The opposition proceedings to an injunction are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly by Articles 28, 38, and 91. The reference rule in this judgment is Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes that, in the case of adherence to the objection of territorial incompetence, the judge seized loses all power to decide on jurisdiction, including procedural costs. The Court emphasizes that the declaration of invalidity of the opposed injunction has no decisional value, making it necessary to refer the case to the competent judge.

The Implications of the Judgment

Opposition proceedings to an injunction - Objection of territorial incompetence - Adherence of the opposing party - Case provided for by Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure - Consequences - Ruling of the seized judge on the costs of the proceedings - Exclusion - Of the judge before whom the case is resumed - Existence - Foundation. In opposition proceedings to an injunction, the adherence to the objection of territorial incompetence proposed by the opposing party entails, pursuant to Article 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the exclusion of any power of the seized judge to decide on jurisdiction, including the power to rule on procedural costs. The declaration of invalidity of the opposed injunction, even if expressly declared, indeed has no decisional value with the consequence that the judge competent to decide on procedural costs is the one before whom the case is referred.

This maxim clarifies that, in the case of adherence to an objection of territorial incompetence, the judge does not have the authority to express a judgment on the jurisdiction of the case but must limit himself to referring the case to the competent judge. The consequences of this decision are significant, both in terms of process management and responsibility for legal costs.

  • Clarity on jurisdiction: the judgment reinforces the principle of territorial jurisdiction, avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction.
  • Implications on costs: the judgment establishes that procedural costs must be decided by the competent judge, excluding the seized judge from the possibility of expressing an opinion on this matter.
  • Judicial precedents: the Court of Appeal references previous judgments, confirming a consolidated orientation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 21300 of 30/07/2024 represents an important point of reference for the management of opposition proceedings to an injunction, clarifying the limits of the judge's power in the case of adherence to the objection of territorial incompetence. The correct application of procedural rules is essential to ensure the fair conduct of the process and to avoid conflicts between various jurisdictions. It is essential that the parties involved in such proceedings understand the implications of this judgment for effective management of their legal strategies.

Bianucci Law Firm