Judgment no. 19850 of 2024: Disavowal of photographic copies and conformity to the original

Judgment no. 19850, issued by the Court of Cassation on July 18, 2024, addresses a crucial aspect of civil law: the disavowal of the conformity of photographic or photostatic copies to the originals. The ruling highlights the importance of an explicit and unequivocal disavowal by the interested party, with reference to Articles 214 and 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let's analyze the implications of this decision in more detail.

Legal context

The Court reiterated that Article 2719 of the Civil Code requires a clear and specific disavowal of the conformity of the copy to the original. In the absence of such disavowal, the photostatic copy is considered acknowledged both in its conformity and in the authenticity of the handwriting and signature. This principle is fundamental to ensuring legal certainty and the stability of documentary evidence in a trial.

Art. 2719 of the Civil Code - Applicability to both the disavowal of the conformity of the copy to its original and the disavowal of the authenticity of handwriting or signature - Subjecting both hypotheses to Articles 214 and 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Consequences - Case law. Article 2719 of the Civil Code - which requires an express disavowal of the conformity of photographic or photostatic copies with the original - applies to both the hypothesis of disavowal of the conformity of the copy to its original and the hypothesis of disavowal of the authenticity of handwriting or signature, and both hypotheses are governed by Articles 214 and 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the consequence that an unauthenticated photostatic copy is deemed acknowledged, both in its conformity to the original and in the handwriting and signature of their author, if the appearing party does not specifically and unequivocally disavow it at the first hearing or in the first response after its production; this effect also occurs when one or more heirs do not declare within these terms - in a formal, clear, and unequivocal manner - that they do not know them. (In this case, the Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment which had considered valid the disavowal made by the heir who had limited himself to declaring that he "harbored strong doubts" about the authenticity of the contested private writings, even if produced only in photocopy, and did not exclude the possibility that they had been composed and signed by the apparent signatory for the purpose of family pacification).

Implications of the judgment

This judgment has important consequences for the parties involved in legal disputes. In particular, if an heir or a party to a lawsuit does not clearly and specifically disavow the submitted copies, the latter are considered valid and acknowledged. It is therefore crucial to pay attention to the methods of disavowing documentary evidence, as a less rigorous approach can lead to the loss of rights.

• Importance of explicit disavowal
• Legal consequences of non-disavowal
• Key regulatory references

Conclusions

Judgment no. 19850 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the issue of disavowing photostatic copies. The Court of Cassation has emphasized the need for unequivocal and timely disavowal, highlighting the fundamental role of clarity in civil proceedings. Parties involved in legal cases must be aware of these dynamics to adequately protect their rights and interests.