Commentary on Ordinance No. 19777 of 17/07/2024: Clarifications on the Start of Terms in Forced Execution

The world of law is characterized by norms and procedures that, although detailed, can be complex to understand. Ordinance No. 19777 of July 17, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the start of opposition terms in the context of forced execution. In particular, it analyzes the issue of the judge's reading of the ordinance in the hearing and its impact on the terms of executive opposition.

The Relevance of the Reading in Hearing

According to what is established in the ruling, if the execution judge reads in the hearing the ordinance rejecting the request for suspension and sets the deadline for the substantive phase of executive opposition, the term starts from the date of that hearing. This principle is central to ensuring greater legal certainty for the parties involved, as it clarifies that formal communication of the ordinance is not necessary to start the term.

ON EXECUTION (DISTINCTION FROM OPPOSITION TO EXECUTIVE ACTS) - MEASURES OF THE EXECUTION JUDGE In general. If the execution judge reads in the hearing the ordinance rejecting the request for suspension and, at the same time, sets the term for initiating the substantive phase of executive opposition, the latter starts from the date of that hearing, even if the judge has anticipated the start from the – unnecessary and indeed irregular – communication of the measure, applying Article 176, paragraph 2, of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Normative and Jurisprudential Implications

This decision is connected to what is provided for in Article 176, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes the methods for the start of terms. Ruling No. 19777 of 2024 fits into a broader jurisprudential context, where it is important to clarify how the judge's measures influence the rights of the parties in the execution process.

  • Clarity on the start of terms.
  • Fundamental role of the reading in hearing.
  • Impact on the legal strategies of the parties.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 19777 of July 17, 2024, represents an important reference point for legal practitioners, as it clarifies the start of terms in executive opposition. Understanding these dynamics is essential to protect the rights of the parties involved and to ensure a fair and transparent execution process. This ruling not only offers an interpretation of the current legislation but also invites reflection on the importance of communication between the judge and the parties during hearings.

Bianucci Law Firm