Analysis of Judgment No. 23253 of 2024: Jurisdiction and Court Costs

Within civil law, the issue of jurisdictional competence and court costs is of fundamental importance. Judgment No. 23253 of August 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on how to proceed in cases of disputes concerning competence and costs, establishing clear principles regarding the appeal of decisions by a judge who has declared themselves incompetent.

Context of the Judgment

The judgment under review refers to a case where the parties, P. (V. G.) and C. (G. P.), disagreed regarding the judge's competence and court costs. The Court of Cassation reiterated that a ruling limited to these issues requires a specific appeal. In particular, the judge established that the losing party may only appeal the section concerning costs, while the winning party may do so to contest the incorrectness of the ruling on costs.

Headnote of the Judgment

Ruling limited to the decision on competence and costs - Appeal, by the party losing on the issue of competence, of only the section concerning costs - Appeal of the same section filed by the party winning on the issue of competence - Proposal of the ordinary means provided for judgments rendered by the judge who declared themselves incompetent - Necessity. The judgment that has ruled solely on competence and court costs must be appealed using the ordinary means of appeal provided against judgments of a judge who has declared themselves incompetent, both in cases where the party losing on the issue of competence intends to challenge exclusively the section concerning court costs – as the appeal is admissible because, although Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure seems to exclude an appeal other than a regulation of competence, in such a hypothesis the prerequisite for the use of this means is lacking – and in cases where the party winning on said issue complains of the incorrectness of the ruling on costs.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has several practical implications for parties involved in legal disputes:

• Clear definition of appeal procedures, avoiding confusion and ambiguity.
• Strengthening the protection of the rights of losing parties, who can contest costs even in the absence of a regulation of competence.
• Clarity on the need to follow specific legal paths depending on the position taken in the proceedings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 23253 of 2024 represents an important legal reference for managing disputes concerning jurisdiction and court costs. The guidance provided by the Court of Cassation is useful for directing parties and legal professionals in the correct approach to appeals, thereby ensuring greater protection of the rights and interests at stake.