Commentary on Ruling Order No. 18367 of 2024: Opposition to Enforcement and Autonomy of Grounds

The recent Order No. 18367 of July 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought on the subject of opposition to enforcement. In particular, the Court clarifies how each ground raised in the opposition proceedings constitutes an independent constitutive fact of the non-existence of the right to proceed, highlighting the importance of analysing each issue raised separately.

Legal Context

The central issue addressed in the ruling concerns the cessation of the subject matter of the dispute in relation to the non-seizability of social shares. According to the Court, this cessation does not lead to the absorption of issues relating to the non-existence or ineffectiveness of the enforcement title. This is a crucial aspect, as it implies that even if one issue is resolved, others can still be assessed independently.

In general. In opposition to enforcement proceedings, each of the grounds raised constitutes a distinct and independent constitutive fact of the non-existence of the contested right to proceed and, therefore, the cessation of the subject matter of the dispute regarding the non-seizability of social shares does not lead to the absorption of the raised issues concerning the non-existence or ineffectiveness of the enforcement title, because the potential acceptance of such objections leads, upon becoming final, to the effect of preventing any enforcement action based on the title, with a further consequence, regarding court costs, of possible reciprocal defeat between the parties.

Implications of the Ruling

This pronouncement has several practical implications for lawyers and their clients. Here are some key points:

• Autonomy of Grounds: Each ground for opposition must be examined independently, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the parties' positions.
• Effects on Enforcement: The acceptance of issues relating to the non-existence of the enforcement title can prevent future enforcement actions, protecting debtors' rights.
• Costs Regime: The ruling clarifies that court costs may be subject to reciprocal defeat, an aspect that can influence the legal strategy to be adopted.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18367 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation not only clarifies fundamental aspects of the opposition to enforcement process but also underscores the importance of detailed and well-structured defence. Lawyers must pay attention to each ground presented in order to adequately protect the rights of their clients. The decision therefore represents an important legal precedent that could influence future legal strategies in the field of opposition to enforcement.