Judgment No. 23425 of 2024: Effects of Judicial Claim on the Expiration of Rights

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, No. 23425 of August 30, 2024, offers an important reflection on the mechanisms of expiration of rights in relation to the filing of a judicial claim. This decision, with President U. Berrino as rapporteur and L. Cavallaro as the drafting judge, focuses on the issue of preventing expiration and the meaning of a judicial claim in the procedural context.

The Issue of Expiration

Expiration is a legal institute that implies the loss of a right following the lapse of a period established by law. In the judgment under review, the Court clarifies that the mere filing of a judicial claim is not sufficient to prevent the accrual of expiration, if a decision on the merits is not reached. In other words, for the claim to have a preclusive effect, a ruling that addresses the merits of the matter is necessary.

The Principle Established by the Court

OF THE ACT Judicial Claim - Preclusive Effect on Expiration - Decision on the Merits - Necessity - Basis - Declaration of inadmissibility of the claim - Exclusion from the accrual of expiration - Reasons. A judicial claim is capable of preventing the expiration of a right not as a manifestation of substantive will, but as an act of impetus in a procedural relationship aimed at obtaining the effective intervention of the judge, such that, if the procedural relationship ceases without a decision on the merits being reached (in this case, due to a ruling of inadmissibility of the appeal), the right is not excluded from the accrual of expiration, as the provisions on the interrupting effect of prescription are not applicable, pursuant to Article 2964 of the Civil Code.

This maxim highlights that a judicial claim must be considered a formal act intended to initiate proceedings and ensure judicial intervention. However, if such a claim does not lead to a decision on the merits, the right in question may still be subject to the accrual of expiration.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The judgment has several practical implications for legal professionals and citizens:

• It reiterates the necessity of a decision on the merits to prevent expiration.
• It makes it clear that a ruling of inadmissibility of an appeal does not automatically prevent the accrual of expiration.
• It emphasizes the importance of initiating proceedings effectively and promptly.

These principles are fundamental not only for understanding the institute of expiration but also for the strategic planning of legal actions by lawyers.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 23425 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation offers an important clarification on the role of a judicial claim in relation to the expiration of rights. It is essential for legal professionals to take these provisions into account to ensure the protection of their clients' rights. Attention must be paid not only to the initiating act of the lawsuit but also to the necessity of reaching a decision on the merits to avoid the loss of the rights in question.