The ruling no. 18381 of 2024 and the nature of the power of attorney for litigation

The recent ruling no. 18381 of July 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on the subject of the power of attorney for litigation, emphasizing the specific role of the defender in certifying the signature. This topic is of significant relevance for all those working in the field of civil law and for legal professionals who must handle representation issues in court.

The regulatory context of the power of attorney for litigation

The power of attorney for litigation is a fundamental legal act in civil proceedings, allowing one party to delegate to another (the defender) the authority to represent them in court. Article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the methods of granting and the necessary forms for the validity of the power of attorney. However, the issue becomes complicated when discussing the authentication of the signature of the person granting the power of attorney.

The ruling's principle and its significance

POWER OF ATTORNEY - AUTHENTICATION OF THE SIGNATURE Power of attorney - Certification by the defender of the authenticity of the signature - Function - Authentication in the strict sense - Exclusion - Proof of authenticity - Attestation of the signature in the presence of the defender - Necessity - Exclusion - Obligation to identify the party granting the unilateral power of attorney - Exclusion. Regarding the power of attorney for litigation, the certification by the defender of the authenticity of the signature, as a "minor authentication," serves only to attest that the signature belongs to a specific person and should not be interpreted as authentication in the strict sense, such as that carried out according to the provisions of Article 2703 of the Civil Code by a notary or another authorized public official, with the consequence that it is not necessary for the defender to attest that the signature was made in their presence, nor for the defender to assume the obligation to identify the party granting the unilateral power of attorney at the time of signature authentication.

This principle clarifies that the defender's certification does not equate to a formal authentication as required for notarial acts. Essentially, the defender is called to certify that the signature belongs to a specific person but is not obliged to attest that the signature was made in their presence. This represents an important simplification for legal practices, reducing the bureaucratic burdens on professionals.

Practical implications of the ruling

The implications of this ruling are manifold:

  • Reduction of the necessity for the defender's physical presence at the time of signing;
  • Clarity on the importance of the defender's certification as "minor authentication";
  • Possibility to streamline procedures and timelines in managing powers of attorney;
  • Greater accessibility for clients in granting mandates to their lawyers.

It is essential for legal professionals to understand these dynamics to best assist their clients while ensuring the validity of the proposed legal acts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 18381 of 2024 represents a step forward in simplifying the regulations concerning the power of attorney for litigation. It provides useful clarifications for defenders and their clients, highlighting the function of the defender's certification without burdening the process with unnecessary requirements. It is important for lawyers to stay updated on such jurisprudential developments to ensure a legal practice that is increasingly efficient and in line with the times.

Bianucci Law Firm