Analysis of Judgment No. 15640 of 2024: Competence and Preliminary Technical Assessments

The judgment no. 15640 of June 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a fundamental theme within the framework of civil proceedings: the competence for value of the judge seized following a preliminary technical assessment. In particular, the ordinance clarifies how the expenses incurred by the party that obtained a provision under Article 696 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code must be added to the value of the merit claim, thus highlighting the importance of an integrated view between the various phases of the process.

The Regulatory Context

The ruling is based on specific regulatory provisions, particularly Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 696, paragraph 2. These rules govern the methods of determining competence for value and the objective accumulation of claims.

  • Art. 10 c.p.c.: Relates to competence for value and establishes the criteria for identifying the competent judge.
  • Art. 696 c.p.c.: Regulates preliminary technical assessments and the related expenses.

The Judgment's Maxim

In general. In the subsequent merit judgment following a preliminary technical assessment, for the purposes of determining the competence for value of the judge seized, the expenses incurred by the party who obtained the provision under Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure are added to the value of the merit claim proposed, given that they relate to a credit, associated with an external constitutive fact distinct from the judgment in which the claim is asserted, which must be the subject of an express request.

This maxim offers a fundamental interpretative key regarding the accumulation of claims and the relevance of legal expenses. Essentially, expenses should not be considered as a standalone factor, but must be integrated into the overall value of the merit claim. This implies that, in the case of a preliminary technical assessment, the judge must consider both components to determine their competence.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The practical consequences of this judgment are manifold. First, it clarifies the methods of calculating competence for value, avoiding potential disputes on this aspect. Second, it highlights the importance of a well-defined legal strategy, especially for parties intending to request a preliminary technical assessment.

In particular, it is essential for the parties to be aware of the expenses that may be incurred and their impact on the judge's competence. Proper procedural planning can make the difference between the acceptance or rejection of the claim, making legal advice crucial.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 15640 of 2024 represents an important reference point for understanding competence for value in the context of preliminary technical assessments. Its implications, both regulatory and practical, provide legal professionals with valuable tools to tackle the complexities of civil proceedings. The clarity provided by the Court of Cassation regarding the accumulation of claims and legal expenses can only encourage a more effective management of cases, benefiting all parties involved.

Bianucci Law Firm