Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge in Consortium Credit: Judgment No. 16125 of 2024

Judgment No. 16125 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on the competent jurisdiction for proceedings to ascertain credits claimed by consortiums for the defense of intensive productions. In particular, the Court has established that it is within the purview of the ordinary judge to decide in proceedings pursuant to Articles 548 and 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.) concerning the collection of consortium contributions. This ruling is significant as it confirms the private nature of such consortiums, now recognized as collective defense organizations.

The Regulatory Framework

The relevant regulatory framework consists of Articles 548 and 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern attachment at a third party's hands and the procedure for ascertaining the third party's obligation. The judgment emphasizes that, prior to the amendment introduced by Law No. 228 of 2012, these articles clearly attributed jurisdiction to the ordinary judge, thus confirming the continuity in the treatment of these disputes.

In general. The judgment pursuant to Articles 548 and 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in the text prior to the amendment introduced by Law No. 228 of 2012) aimed at ascertaining the credit claimed by the executing consortium for the defense of intensive productions (now, collective defense organization) against the agent responsible for collecting consortium contributions (garnisheed third party) falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, given the private nature of the aforementioned consortium.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for defense consortiums and their creditors, as it establishes a clear principle regarding competent jurisdiction. The practical consequences include:

• Greater legal certainty for consortium creditors in the collection of their credits.
• Clear definition of the relationship between consortiums and third parties, reducing the risk of inappropriate litigation.
• Strengthening the position of consortiums as private entities in managing resources and patrimonial rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16125 of 2024 represents an important step towards greater clarity in the jurisdiction concerning consortiums for the defense of intensive productions. The confirmation of the ordinary judge's competence in proceedings to ascertain consortium credits not only facilitates collection but also underscores the private nature of these entities, promoting more efficient and secure management of such disputes.