Commentary on Judgment No. 22874 of 2024: Opposition to a Payment Order and its Consequences

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 22874 of August 16, 2024, represents an important reference point for the regulation of opposition to a payment order. In this context, the Court addressed the issue of the extinction of the referral judgment and its consequences, offering fundamental clarifications for the understanding of the payment order procedure.

Context of the Judgment

The central issue concerns the extinction of the referral judgment, which occurs following the annulment of the judgment upholding the opposition to the payment order. According to Article 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), such extinction leads to the ineffectiveness of the opposed payment order, even if it was erroneously declared enforceable.

Opposition to a payment order - Cassation with referral - Extinction of the proceedings - Consequences - Ineffectiveness of the payment order - Basis - Erroneous declaration of enforceability - Reviewability by the judge - Reasons. In the matter of opposition to a payment order, the extinction of the referral proceedings, consequent to the annulment of the judgment upholding the opposition, entails, pursuant to Article 393 c.p.c., the extinction of the entire procedure and the ineffectiveness of the opposed payment order, even if it was erroneously declared enforceable. This is a merely declarative measure lacking a decisive character, which, although not subject to appeal, not even by recourse under Article 111 of the Constitution, is not excluded from the judge's review. The judge can verify its legitimacy, both in the case of late opposition under Article 650 c.p.c., where enforceability is declared due to the failure to file opposition or the non-appearance of the opponent, and in the case of opposition to execution, where the payment order constitutes the title for enforcement action, and finally in other proceedings where its effectiveness is asserted.

Practical Implications

This judgment offers several points for reflection. Firstly, it emphasizes that, even if a payment order has been declared enforceable, it does not acquire a decisive character and therefore remains subject to judicial review. Parties can thus challenge the legitimacy of such a measure in various legal forums.

• The judge can examine the legitimacy of the payment order during late opposition proceedings.
• In the case of opposition to execution, the payment order can be subject to challenge.
• The issue can also be raised in other proceedings where its effectiveness is invoked.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 22874 of 2024 provides an important clarification on the nature of the payment order and its consequences in the event of opposition. Legal professionals must bear in mind that the extinction of the referral proceedings not only renders the payment order ineffective but also allows for significant protection of the rights of the parties involved, granting the judge an active role in verifying the legitimacy of the measure. This judgment therefore represents a significant step forward in the protection of citizens' rights within the context of payment order proceedings.