Order No. 10139 of 2024: Clarifications on the Suspension of Procedural Terms during the Covid-19 Emergency

The recent Order No. 10139 of April 15, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important interpretation regarding the suspension of civil procedural terms during the Covid-19 health emergency. This provision is crucial for understanding how procedural terms were managed in an emergency context and for ensuring the defendants' right to defense.

The Regulatory Context of the Suspension

Article 83, paragraph 2, of Law Decree No. 18 of 2020 provided for the suspension of procedural terms due to the epidemiological emergency. However, the Court has clarified that when a backward-running procedural term intercepts, even partially, the suspension period, the term itself must run entirely from the moment the suspension ceases until the date of the subsequent hearing.

• Commencement of terms: must occur from the cessation of the suspension.
• Postponement of the hearing: a judicial order is necessary.
• Nullity of the renewal order: not curable, as it does not concern a nullity of the vocatio in ius.

Analysis of the Maxim and Practical Implications

In general. Regarding the suspension of civil procedural terms ordered due to the Covid-19 epidemiological emergency by Article 83, paragraph 2, of Law Decree No. 18 of 2020, if the running of a backward-running procedural term (in this case, the term to appear for the defendant by writ of summons) intercepts, even minimally, the pandemic suspension period, said term must run, in its entirety, from the moment the suspension ceases until the date of the subsequent hearing and, to this end, a judicial order to postpone the hearing must be issued, not an order to renew the notification which, therefore, if issued, is null and void, as it does not concern the curing of non-existent nullities of the vocatio in ius but rather, ensuring the defendant the full benefit of the term for defense.

This maxim emphasizes the importance of guaranteeing the right to defense. In fact, the order to postpone the hearing is essential to ensure that the defendant can fully exercise their right to defense, without being penalized by the suspension of terms. The error of issuing an order to renew the notification, therefore, would result in the nullity of the order, as it cannot remedy a situation of inadequate protection of the defendant's rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 10139 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the protection of procedural rights during emergency situations. It highlights how jurisprudence is called upon to balance the functional needs of the judicial system with the fundamental right to defense, ensuring that procedural terms are managed fairly and justly. It is essential for legal professionals to consider these guidelines to ensure the correct application of the rules during and after periods of health emergency.