Commentary on Order No. 23283 of 2024: Forced Execution and Undue Payment Recovery

The recent Order No. 23283 of August 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on a crucial issue in forced execution law: undue payment recovery. The central question concerns the possibility for the party against whom execution is levied to seek the return of amounts collected by the creditor following an execution order, in the event of the latter's illegitimacy. Through this ruling, the Court clarifies the limits of such an action, highlighting the stability of expropriation outcomes.

Context of the Ruling

The Court of Cassation, with its order, has reiterated that the measure closing an execution proceeding possesses a tendency towards finality. This principle is fundamental as it guarantees the stability of decisions and outcomes achieved through forced execution. Essentially, once the proceeding is closed, the party against whom execution is levied can no longer pursue an action for undue payment recovery, unless they have previously contested the illegitimacy of the execution through an execution opposition, which was upheld after the closure of the procedure.

Generally. In matters of forced execution, the measure that closes the proceeding – given its tendency towards finality, aimed at ensuring the stability of expropriation outcomes, as a consequence of the system of legality guarantees provided by remedies within the proceeding itself to protect the parties – precludes the party against whom execution is levied from pursuing an action for undue payment recovery, based on the premise of the execution's illegitimacy, against the enforcing creditor (or intervening creditor) to obtain the return of amounts collected, unless such illegitimacy was asserted through an execution opposition filed during the proceeding and upheld after its closure.

Relevance of the Ruling

This order not only clarifies the boundary between legitimacy and illegitimacy in forced execution, but also underscores the importance of acting promptly to contest any irregularities. The necessity of filing an execution opposition during the proceeding therefore becomes fundamental to preserving the right to seek the return of any amounts unlawfully collected.

• Stability of execution orders.
• Importance of promptness in execution opposition.
• Limitation of the undue payment recovery action.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 23283 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of case law regarding forced execution and undue payment recovery. It highlights not only the importance of the stability of execution orders but also that of protecting the rights of the party against whom execution is levied through the use of adequate and timely legal instruments. Therefore, it is essential for anyone involved in a forced execution proceeding to be aware of their rights and the ways to effectively protect them.