Commentary on Judgment No. 18881 of 2024: Jurisdiction Regulation and Timeliness of the Exception

The recent judgment No. 18881 of July 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important insights into the issue of jurisdiction in civil matters. In particular, the analyzed case emphasizes how the late assertion of a jurisdictional exception may preclude the possibility of raising a jurisdictional conflict. This principle is fundamental to ensure legal certainty and the proper functioning of justice.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court had to decide on a case in which the judge, while declaring his own incompetence, did not take into account the timeliness of the exception raised. According to the principle expressed in the judgment, the judge cannot raise a jurisdictional conflict ex officio if the interested party has not challenged the declaration of incompetence through a necessary regulation. The issue is therefore deemed precluded, as it is not possible to revisit the timeliness of the exception against the judge who has already declined jurisdiction.

“(OFFICIAL REGULATION) Official jurisdiction regulation - Exception of incompetence - Late official assertion or upon request of a party - Declaration of incompetence by the judge despite the lateness of the assertion - Reinstatement of the case before the judge declared competent for subject matter or mandatory territory - Official jurisdiction regulation - Admissibility - Exclusion - Basis. The judge before whom the case is reinstated following a declinatory order of competence, although for reasons of subject matter or for mandatory territory, not challenged with a necessary jurisdiction regulation, cannot raise a jurisdictional conflict ex officio to assert the violation of the rules on the timeliness of the exception or the official assertion, since, as a consequence of the failure to present the necessary jurisdiction regulation at the request of the interested party, the issue of the lateness of the assertion of incompetence before the referring judge is now precluded and remains outside the power to raise the conflict as identified by art. 45 c.p.c.”

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The practical consequences of this judgment are significant for legal practitioners. Here are some key points:

  • The necessity to raise the exception of incompetence promptly, to avoid it being considered late.
  • The judge receiving the reinstated case cannot revisit jurisdictional issues if there have not been timely assertions from the parties.
  • The importance of adequate legal counsel at the start of proceedings, to avoid procedural errors that may compromise the outcome of the case.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 18881 of 2024 represents an important clarification in civil procedural law, highlighting the rigidity of the rules concerning jurisdiction and the importance of timeliness in raised exceptions. It is essential for parties involved in civil proceedings to pay attention to these rules to avoid complications and ensure proper administration of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm