Commentary on Judgment No. 18196 of 2024: The Endo-Execution Division and the Terms of Resumption

The judgment No. 18196 of July 2, 2024, issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in the field of civil procedure: the division of undivided assets in the context of forced execution. In particular, the ordinance clarifies the temporal dynamics related to the resumption of the executive process in the case of so-called "endo-executive" division. This topic is of significant importance for those managing undivided assets and wishing to fully understand the legal implications of division.

The Concept of Endo-Execution Division

The endo-execution division refers to that specific procedure that takes place within an already initiated executive context. In other words, it is a division that occurs while an executive action is ongoing on the undivided assets. The Court has established that, in such cases, the term for the resumption of the executive process does not start from the provision that concludes the declarative phase of the division judgment, but from the provision that declares the division project executable.

Division judgment so-called "endo-executive" - Suspension of the executive process - Resumption of the procedure - Term - Commencement - Provision that concludes the so-called declarative phase of the division judgment - Exclusion - Provision declaring the division project executable - Existence - Basis. In the case of so-called "endo-executive" division, the term for the resumption of the executive process, suspended pursuant to art. 601 c.p.c., does not commence from the provision that concludes the so-called declarative phase of the division judgment but rather from the provision declaring the division project executable, as only this latter provision, unlike the first, has a definitive character and res judicata effect for the purposes of art. 297 c.p.c.

The Practical Implications of the Judgment

This decision of the Supreme Court has several practical implications for legal practitioners and those involved in division proceedings. In particular, it is important to consider:

  • The term for resumption is crucial to avoid losing the right to continue the executive action.
  • The distinction between the declarative and executive provisions is fundamental to understanding the timelines.
  • Awareness of these dynamics can prevent delays and issues in the division process.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 18196 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding endo-execution division, emphasizing the necessity for a correct interpretation and application of civil procedural norms. For those working in the legal field, it is essential to familiarize themselves with these provisions to ensure the protection of the rights and interests of their clients. The Court, with this ordinance, has reiterated the importance of legal certainty and clarity in resumption timelines, thus contributing to making the legal context more understandable and manageable.

Bianucci Law Firm