Comment on Judgment No. 15678 of 2024: Ineffectiveness of Rental Management Acts in Enforcement Proceedings

The judgment No. 15678 of June 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding the management of the rental relationship in the event of forced execution. In particular, the Court specified that acts performed by the debtor, if not carried out in the capacity of custodian or without the authorization of the judge, do not produce valid effects in relation to the enforcement proceedings and the tenant. This decision fits into a complex legal framework that regulates leases and enforcement procedures in Italy.

The Principle of the Judgment

In general. Acts of management of the rental relationship for different use - such as the late registration of the contract or the denial of renewal at the first expiration under art. 29 of Law No. 392 of 1978 - carried out during the enforcement proceedings by the debtor not in their capacity as custodian (or in that capacity, but without the authorization of the execution judge) are radically ineffective with respect to the procedure and the tenant themselves, even in the event of the termination of the enforcement procedure for reasons other than the forced sale of the property before the first expiration of the relationship. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled with referral the judgment that had deemed valid the denial of renewal - for the expiration of March 31, 2017, based on a contract signed on March 31, 2011, and registered on January 19, 2016 - pending an enforcement procedure on the leased property, initiated in 2014, highlighting, moreover, the unenforceability of the contract given the radical ineffectiveness of its registration carried out by the landlord after the seizure).

Implications of the Judgment

The Court emphasized the importance of timely registration of rental contracts and the obligation to report situations of seizure. In particular, the late registration of a rental contract, as well as the denial of renewal, cannot be considered valid if carried out during the seizure phase. The consequences are significant for both landlords and tenants:

  • Landlords: Cannot validly oppose acts of rental management in the event of ongoing enforcement proceedings.
  • Tenants: Can remain protected from uncommunicated or unauthorized acts, maintaining their position even in the event of termination of the proceedings.
  • Judges: Must supervise the legitimacy of acts performed by debtors during enforcement proceedings.

Conclusions

This judgment represents an important step in protecting the rights of tenants and defining the responsibilities of landlords and debtors. By affirming the radical ineffectiveness of unauthorized acts, the Court of Cassation reiterates the need for correct and timely management of leases and enforcement procedures. It is essential that all parties involved in the rental process are informed and aware of the legal implications of their actions.

Bianucci Law Firm