The Supreme Court on the Admissibility of Counterclaims in Opposition to a Payment Order: Analysis of Order No. 16162/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation serve as a beacon for the interpretation and application of law. Order No. 16162 of June 16, 2025, issued by the Third Section and presided over by Dr. R. F. G. A., with Dr. S. T. as rapporteur and author, provides fundamental clarifications regarding the admissibility of counterclaims in opposition proceedings to a payment order. This decision, which quashed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Trieste of April 27, 2023, is of crucial importance for understanding the procedural limits and opportunities for those managing an opposition to a summary proceeding order.

The Payment Order and Opposition: A General Overview

The payment order is a swift procedural tool (Articles 633 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure) that allows a creditor to quickly obtain an enforceable title with written proof of the debt. This speed does not compromise the debtor's right to defense, as they can file an opposition within strict deadlines. The opposition proceeding is not an independent lawsuit but a phase that verifies the validity of the original creditor's claim, transforming into a full ordinary proceeding to ascertain the existence of the right asserted through the payment order.

In this context, questions arise about the possibility for the opponent (the debtor) to, in turn, file claims against the creditor (the respondent). This is where counterclaims come into play, allowing the defendant to assert their own claim against the plaintiff, thereby expanding the scope of the lawsuit. But what are the boundaries of this possibility in the specific proceeding of opposition to a payment order?

Counterclaims in Opposition Proceedings: The Boundaries Defined by the Court of Cassation

The issue of the admissibility of counterclaims in opposition proceedings to a payment order has long been a subject of debate and judicial intervention. The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 16162/2025, has reiterated established principles, though these are not always easy to apply in practice, especially concerning the connection between the counterclaim and the original claim. The judgment concerned the dispute between A. C. and C. V., and it underscored the importance of a rigorous assessment of the nature of the counterclaim.

The jurisprudential maxim that can be extracted from this ruling, in line with previous consistent case law (such as No. 4131 of 2024), clarifies that:

Within the scope of opposition proceedings to a payment order, the filing of a counterclaim by the opponent is admissible only if it is based on the constitutive facts of the respondent's claim or on facts strictly connected thereto, or when it aims to obtain a declaration of the non-existence of the right forming the basis of the payment order; otherwise, it is considered a new claim incompatible with the nature and limits of the procedure.

This statement is of fundamental importance. It means that the opponent cannot simply "take advantage" of the opposition proceeding to assert any claim they may have against the respondent. The counterclaim must have an intrinsic link to the subject matter of the main dispute, i.e., to the right asserted through the payment order. A generic subjective connection (i.e., that the parties are the same) is not sufficient; an objective connection is required, which can arise from:

• Constitutive facts of the respondent's claim: for example, the opponent disputes the original debt based on a breach by the respondent that generates a counter-claim.
• Strictly connected facts: situations that, while not the same constitutive facts, are so closely linked to the main claim that a unified decision is appropriate.
• Claim for negative ascertainment: the counterclaim aims to have the non-existence of the right forming the basis of the payment order declared, perhaps due to set-off or the nullity of the title.

Outside of these hypotheses, the counterclaim would be considered a "new claim" and would be inadmissible, as it would exceed the limits of the opposition proceeding, whose primary purpose remains the verification of the validity of the payment order. This rigorous interpretation prevents the opposition proceeding from becoming an indiscriminate container for every type of dispute between the parties, ensuring the speed and specificity that characterize summary proceedings.

Practical Implications and Conclusions of the Order

Order No. 16162/2025, by quashing and remanding the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trieste, calls for a more careful assessment of the connection between the counterclaim and the cause of action of the payment order. For legal practitioners, this implies essential strategic planning from the outset. The opponent's lawyer must carefully evaluate whether their counterclaim falls within the strict parameters of admissibility outlined by the Court of Cassation, to avoid inadmissibility rulings that could prejudice the protection of their client.

In summary, the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of keeping opposition proceedings to a payment order within their natural course. The possibility of filing counterclaims is not precluded but is strictly conditioned by their objective connection with the creditor's claim pursued through the summary proceeding. This ruling serves as a warning for the correct procedural approach and a valuable guide for ensuring coherence and efficiency in the judicial system, while protecting the parties' right to defense.