Commentary on Judgment No. 15678 of 2024: Ineffectiveness of Rental Management Acts in Enforcement Proceedings

Judgment No. 15678 of June 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding the management of rental relationships in the event of enforcement proceedings. In particular, the Court specified that acts carried out by the debtor, if not performed in the capacity of custodian or without the judge's authorization, do not produce valid effects towards the enforcement proceedings and the tenant. This decision is part of a complex legal framework governing leases and enforcement proceedings in Italy.

The Ruling's Headnote

In general. Acts of management of a non-residential lease relationship - such as the late registration of the contract or the refusal to renew at the first expiry pursuant to art. 29 of Law no. 392 of 1978 - carried out during enforcement proceedings by the debtor, not in their capacity as custodian (or in such capacity, but without the authorization of the enforcement judge), are radically unproductive of effects towards the proceedings and the tenant themselves, even in the event of the extinction of the enforcement proceedings for reasons other than the forced sale of the property prior to the first expiry of the relationship. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed with referral the judgment that had deemed valid the refusal to renew - for the expiry of March 31, 2017, based on a contract entered into on March 31, 2011, and registered on January 19, 2016 - while enforcement proceedings were pending on the leased property, initiated in 2014, also highlighting the un-opponability of the contract given the radical ineffectiveness of its registration carried out by the lessor after the seizure).

Implications of the Judgment

The Court emphasized the importance of timely registration of lease agreements and the obligation to communicate seizure situations. In particular, the late registration of a lease agreement, as well as the refusal to renew, cannot be considered valid if carried out during the seizure phase. The consequences are significant for both lessors and tenants:

• Lessors: Cannot validly oppose rental management acts in the event of ongoing enforcement proceedings.
• Tenants: Can remain protected by uncommunicated or unauthorized acts, maintaining their position even in the event of the proceedings' extinction.
• Judges: Must oversee the legitimacy of acts carried out by debtors during enforcement proceedings.

Conclusions

This judgment represents an important step in protecting tenants' rights and defining the responsibilities of lessors and debtors. By affirming the radical ineffectiveness of unauthorized acts, the Court of Cassation reiterates the need for correct and timely management of leases and enforcement proceedings. It is crucial that all parties involved in the rental process are informed and aware of the legal implications of their actions.