Order No. 18285 of 2024: Automatic Stay of Proceedings in Case of Bankruptcy

The recent Order No. 18285 of July 4, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on procedural dynamics in the event of a party's bankruptcy in a civil proceeding. The Order in question clarifies that the stay of proceedings is automatic in the presence of bankruptcy, but also establishes some fundamental criteria for the commencement of the deadlines for recommencement. This article aims to analyze the salient points of the ruling and its practical implications.

Automatic Stay of Proceedings: What the Law Provides

According to Article 43, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy Law, in the event of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings for one of the parties, the proceedings are automatically stayed. This means that the judgment cannot proceed until certain legal actions are taken, namely the recommencement of the proceedings. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the deadline for recommencing or continuing the proceedings runs not from the mere knowledge of the bankruptcy event, but from the judicial declaration of the stay.

In general. In the event of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings for one of the parties to a civil proceeding, the stay of proceedings is automatic, pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy Law, but the deadline for its recommencement or continuation runs from the moment when the judicial declaration of the stay itself is brought to the attention of each party and, therefore, from the pronouncement in court or from the notification of the relevant order to the parties and the trustee by one of the interested parties or ex officio, other forms of knowledge that the parties may have had of the interrupting event being irrelevant for this purpose. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the challenged decision which had made the deadline for recommencement run from the notification of a request for an early hearing in which the intervening bankruptcy of the party was cited.).

Implications of the Ruling for Civil Proceedings

This ruling has important implications for the management of civil proceedings in which bankruptcy occurs. In particular, it highlights that:

• The deadline for recommencement only runs from the official pronouncement of the stay.
• Any informal or unofficial knowledge of the bankruptcy does not affect the running of the deadline.
• The parties must be officially informed of the situation in order to proceed legally.

This position of the Court of Cassation aligns with the general principles of civil procedural law, which require that parties always be informed clearly and precisely regarding the status of the proceedings.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 18285 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on the subject of the stay of proceedings following bankruptcy. It emphasizes the need for formal knowledge of the interrupting event for the correct running of the recommencement deadlines, avoiding confusion and potential abuses. This decision offers a clearer legal framework for the parties involved and for legal professionals, thus contributing to greater certainty in the Italian legal system.