Opposition to Executive Acts: Analysis of Order No. 19932/2024

The recent Order No. 19932 of July 19, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the regulation of opposition to executive acts, highlighting not only the deadlines to be respected but also the burdens of allegation and proof on the parte of the opponent. In a constantly evolving legal context, understanding the implications of this ruling is fundamental for anyone involved in enforcement procedures.

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question involves M. (C.) against B. (C.), where the Court of Catania declared the opposition proposed by M. inadmissible. The Court deemed the opposition late, presented two years after the first request for access to the documents, without the opponent providing evidence regarding the reasons for their defensive inaction.

Timeliness of opposition - Burden of allegation and proof on the opponent - Necessity - Case. In matters of opposition to executive acts, pursuant to Article 617 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, the opponent has the burden of indicating and proving the moment they became aware, legally or factually, of the executive act they claim is flawed; otherwise, it cannot be verified whether they complied with the deadline for proposing the opposition. (In this case, relating to the appeal against the order to continue the sale operations, the Supreme Court confirmed the challenged ruling which deemed the opposition late, proposed two years after the first request for access to the documents following the issuance of the original sale order, as the appealing party failed to prove the reasons for their defensive inaction).

The Implications of the Ruling

The ruling clarifies some fundamental issues for those who need to file oppositions to executive acts:

  • Burden of proof: The opponent must demonstrate the moment of knowledge of the executive act, whether legal or factual.
  • Strict timelines: It is essential to respect the deadlines; otherwise, the opposition risks being declared inadmissible.
  • Defensive inaction: The lack of action by the opponent must be justified; otherwise, late motivations cannot be accepted.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 19932 of 2024 represents an important guide for managing oppositions to executive acts. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed the principle of timeliness, emphasizing that knowledge of acts and adherence to deadlines are crucial elements to ensure a fair trial. To avoid surprises during the enforcement phase, it is essential that those involved consult experienced lawyers capable of providing adequate guidance on how to proceed in such circumstances.

Bianucci Law Firm