Order No. 15901 of 2024: Clarifications on the Admissibility of the Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, with order no. 15901 of June 6, 2024, ruled on a matter of significant importance for legal practice: the requirements for the commencement of the time limit for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court following the communication of the order of inadmissibility of the appeal. This ruling offers significant insights for all legal professionals, clarifying some fundamental aspects of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Regulatory Context

Article 348-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the inadmissibility of the appeal, establishing that the communication of the order of inadmissibility is crucial for the commencement of the time limits for the appeal to the Supreme Court. In particular, the order in question clarified that for the sixty-day time limit for the appeal to the Supreme Court to begin to run, it is necessary for the recipient party to be able to understand the nature of the measure adopted.

(APPEAL) - ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL Communication of the order of inadmissibility of the appeal pursuant to art. 348 bis c.p.c. - Requirements for the commencement of the time limit for the appeal to the Supreme Court - Case law. The communication of the order declaring the inadmissibility of the appeal pursuant to art. 348-bis c.p.c. is capable of starting the sixty-day time limit for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, pursuant to art. 348-ter, paragraph 3, c.p.c. only when it allows the recipient party to know the nature of the measure adopted, implying the special appeal regime provided for. (In this case, the S.C. declared inadmissible, due to lateness, the appeal filed against the first-instance judgment five months after the communication of the order of inadmissibility of the appeal made via PEC to the lawyer).

The Case Analyzed

In this case, the appeal was declared inadmissible due to lateness, as it was filed five months after the communication of the order of inadmissibility of the appeal, which took place via PEC. This element highlights the importance of clear and timely communication, which allows lawyers to act within the time limits established by law. In fact, the Court reiterated that the communication must allow for a full understanding of the measure and its implications.

• Importance of clarity in communication
• Need to respect the commencement time limits
• Crucial role of PEC in notification

Conclusions

In summary, order no. 15901 of 2024 provides an important reflection on the necessary requirements for an appeal to the Supreme Court to be considered admissible. It is essential that communications relating to the inadmissibility of the appeal are clear and precise, to avoid the forfeiture of appeal rights. Legal operators must pay particular attention to these aspects to ensure the correct management of deadlines and legal procedures.