Order No. 16027 of 2024: Registration Costs and Recovery in Third-Party Seizures

The recent order no. 16027 of June 7, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in the field of forced executions: the registration costs of the assignment order in the case of third-party seizures. This legal provision provides important clarifications regarding the responsibilities related to the payment of such costs, especially in cases of inability to recover the debt.

The Context of the Ruling

The central issue of the ruling concerns the identification of the party responsible for paying the registration costs in the absence of an explicit charge to the debtor. The Court established that, if the assigned credit cannot be recovered, the original debtor is required to reimburse the creditor for all the necessary costs of the forced expropriation. This principle fits within the regulatory framework outlined by the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly in articles 95, 553, and the provisions of the Constitutional Court.

Registration costs of the assignment order – Lack of explicit charge - Inability to recover - Responsible party - Identification. In the matter of third-party seizures, the registration cost of the assignment order, in the absence of an explicit charge to the debtor, if, due to the insufficiency of the assigned credit, it cannot be effectively recovered, in whole or in part, against the third party, falls back to the original debtor, who is obliged to reimburse the creditor for all expenses incurred for the forced expropriation.

The Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant practical implications. In fact, it clarifies that if the third party cannot reimburse the credit due to economic incapacity, the original debtor cannot evade the payment of costs. In this way, the creditor's right to have their expenses incurred for the forced execution reimbursed is protected.

  • Clarity on financial responsibilities: The ruling firmly establishes who must bear the costs in the case of a seizure.
  • Protection of creditor rights: It ensures that the creditor is not burdened with unrecoverable costs.
  • Solid legal references: The ruling is based on established legal principles and clear regulations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 16027 of 2024 represents an important step towards clarity and certainty in the law of forced executions. It emphasizes the importance of adequate charging of costs and the responsibility of the original debtor, contributing to a fairer and more predictable legal system. It is essential that legal professionals and their clients understand these dynamics to better address situations of seizure and debt recovery.

Bianucci Law Firm