Commentary on Judgment No. 17055 of 20/06/2024: Forced Execution and Abusiveness of Clauses

The recent judgment No. 17055 of June 20, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, sheds new light on the mechanisms of forced execution, especially when it is based on an unopposed injunction. This case, which involves the appellant M. F. against E., highlights the need for an ex officio review by the execution judge regarding the potential abusiveness of contractual clauses, in line with what is established by Directive 93/13/EEC.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The central issue of the judgment concerns the interpretation of the principle of effectiveness of judicial protection, which is a fundamental right recognized also at the European level. The Court reiterated that, even in the absence of opposition from the consumer, it is the judge's duty to examine ex officio the nature of the clauses contained in the contract, especially when they may be deemed abusive.

EXECUTION - FOR LACK OF OPPOSITION OR FOR LACK OF ACTION BY THE OPPONENT In general. For the purposes of respecting the principle of effectiveness of judicial protection of the rights recognized to consumers by Directive 93/13/EEC, if the execution is based on an unopposed injunction and the monitoring judge has failed to examine the potential abusiveness of the clauses contained in the contract concluded between a professional and a consumer, the abusive nature of the contractual arrangements must be identified, even ex officio, by the execution judge, but within the limit of the sale of the seized asset (or the assignment of the claim), being unable to oppose the successful bidder defects in the execution process that have not been raised through the remedy of opposition to execution acts.

The Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has important implications for consumers and professionals. Among the most relevant, we can highlight:

  • The necessity for judges to examine contractual clauses even if there is no opposition from the consumer, thus ensuring greater protection of consumer rights.
  • The responsibility of creditors to use clear and non-abusive contractual clauses to avoid disputes during execution.
  • The strengthening of the role of the execution judge in ensuring justice and fairness in the execution process.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17055 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater protection of consumer rights in the execution context. The Court emphasized the importance of ex officio control over abusive clauses, thereby reinforcing the principle of effectiveness of judicial protection. This approach not only protects the rights of consumers but also contributes to a more equitable and fair legal system, where parties are treated with fairness and respect.

Bianucci Law Firm