Judgment No. 21860 of 2024 and the Peremptory Nature of the Deadline under Art. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The recent judgment No. 21860 of August 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, ruled on the peremptory nature of the deadline for submitting the application for assignment in forced execution, as provided for by Article 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This ruling is of particular importance, as it clarifies the implications of legislative reforms concerning forced execution and the dynamics between creditors and third-party bidders.

Regulatory Context and Reforms

The deadline for submitting the application for assignment has been the subject of significant reforms, particularly through Legislative Decree No. 83 of 2015 and Legislative Decree No. 59 of 2016. These reforms aim to make forced execution more functional and faster, responding to the needs of a legal system that must balance the interest of the creditor with that of any third-party bidders.

• The deadline under Art. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been recognized as peremptory.
• The reforms aim to ensure a balance between the creditor's claims and third-party offers.
• Emphasis has been placed on the need to accelerate enforcement procedures.

Deadline under Art. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Peremptory Nature - Rationale. In adherence to the demands for functionality and acceleration of forced execution underlying the reforms referred to in Legislative Decree No. 83 of 2015 and Legislative Decree No. 59 of 2016, the deadline for submitting the application for assignment, pursuant to Art. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be recognized as peremptory, given the need to reconcile the interest of the applicant creditor with the opposing interest of third-party bidders who aspire to acquire the asset based on "minimum" offers pursuant to Art. 572, paragraph 3, and Art. 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis of the Judgment

The judgment in question has therefore established that the deadline for submitting the application for assignment must be considered peremptory. This means that compliance with it is not merely recommended, but mandatory. The Court highlighted how adherence to this deadline is fundamental to ensuring a correct and fair forced execution, preventing situations of uncertainty that could prejudice the rights of third-party bidders.

The recognition of the peremptory nature of the deadline represents a response to issues that have emerged in practice, where delays in complying with such deadlines could jeopardize the awarding of the asset. The Court has therefore sought to harmonize the interests involved, protecting both the creditor and the third-party bidders, who may submit minimum offers to acquire the asset in question.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 21860 of 2024 offers important food for thought for all legal professionals and for creditors themselves. Its interpretation of the peremptory nature of the deadline under Art. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure underscores the importance of timely management of assignment applications, with a view to faster and more effective forced execution. This approach not only protects the rights of creditors but also ensures greater legal certainty for interested third parties, making the enforcement system more balanced and functional.