Commentary on Judgment No. 21300 of 30/07/2024: Jurisdiction in Opposition Proceedings to an Injunction Order

The recent judgment No. 21300 of July 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Bologna, offers important clarifications regarding territorial jurisdiction in the context of opposition proceedings to an injunction order. In particular, the Court addresses the issue of adherence to the exception of territorial incompetence by the opposing party, highlighting the procedural consequences and responsibilities concerning costs.

Regulatory Context

The opposition proceedings to an injunction order are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Articles 28, 38, and 91. The reference norm in this judgment is Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes that, in case of adherence to the exception of territorial incompetence, the court seized loses all power to decide on jurisdiction, including procedural costs. The Court emphasizes that the declaration of invalidity of the opposed injunction order has no decisive value, making it necessary to refer the case to the competent judge.

Implications of the Judgment

Opposition proceedings to an injunction order - Exception of territorial incompetence - Adherence by the opposing party - Case referred to in Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure - Consequences - Ruling by the seized judge on procedural costs - Exclusion - Ruling by the judge before whom the case is resumed - Existence - Basis. In opposition proceedings to an injunction order, adherence to the exception of territorial incompetence raised by the opposing party entails, pursuant to Article 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the exclusion of any power of the seized judge to decide on jurisdiction, including the power to rule on procedural costs. The declaration of invalidity of the opposed injunction order, even if expressly declared, has no decisive value, with the consequence that the judge to whom the case is referred is competent to rule on procedural costs.

This maxim clarifies that, in case of adherence to an exception of territorial incompetence, the judge does not have the discretion to rule on the jurisdiction of the case but must limit themselves to referring the case to the competent judge. The consequences of such a decision are significant, both in terms of case management and responsibility for legal costs.

• Clarity on jurisdiction: the judgment reinforces the principle of territorial jurisdiction, avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction.
• Implications on costs: the judgment establishes that procedural costs must be decided by the competent judge, excluding the seized judge from the possibility of ruling on this matter.
• Jurisprudential precedents: the Court of Appeal refers to previous judgments, confirming a consolidated trend.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 21300 of 30/07/2024 represents an important reference point for the management of opposition proceedings to injunction orders, clarifying the limits of the judge's power in case of adherence to the exception of territorial incompetence. The correct application of procedural rules is fundamental to ensure a fair conduct of the proceedings and to avoid conflicts between different jurisdictions. It is essential that the parties involved in such proceedings understand the implications of this judgment for an effective management of their legal strategies.