Foot Sniffing Friends Mothers Feet

case of the Bar Council PRESS


National Bar Council at the Ministry of Justice
PRESS
opposition to injunctions: the CNF urgent request for a sneaky
to avoid the admissibility of mass
The Attorney calls for regulatory intervention, interpretation of ' Article 645 of the Code to overcome
halter Court of the United Sections of the Supreme Court (Judgement No. 19246 of September 9 last year)
Rome 10.06.2010. A sneaky urgent to prevent the statements in mass
admissibility of the opposition to the injunction in which the opponent has not made
within five days. The
strongly urges the Bar Council, to overcome the law of the United
sections of the Supreme Court that is creating great confusion in the category of advocate, concerned about the effect
"disposal" for admissibility of thousands of opposition to the decrees
relief.
to light the concerns Advocacy has been a
recent ruling by the United Sections of the Supreme Court (Judgement of 9 September 19246), while reaffirming that the constant guidance of the Court
, according to which the abbreviation of the terms of the opponent follows up automatically
objective of concession to the fact 'the opposite of a time of summons
lower than normal, has also provided a "clarification" stating that the effect
"automatic" reduction to the formation of the opposite half of the period of work for the "one
done" that the opposition has been proposed. With the result, which is considered devastating
the bar, that the late establishment of the opponent (over a period of five days) should be treated
its failure to establish and involves the admissibility of the opposition.
So in fact the decision: "systematic consistency requirements as well as practical (as
acceleration of the proceedings, ed), justify the claim that not only the terms of the constitution and of the opposite opponent
are automatically reduced to half in case of an actual assignment
opposed to a deadline to appear less than the legal one, but that this effect is due to the automatic
mere fact that the opposition has been proposed, since Article 645 provides that in any case Opposition
the terms to appear to be reduced in half. If, however, in which the opponent checks
a time of summons not less than the legal one, still saves the power of the opposite,
dimidiato formed in the end, the anticipation of the hearing to request an appearance under
art. 163 bis, paragraph 3. "
For the CNF, then, should be clarified urgently, and by legislation, the scope of Article 645 cpc
second paragraph, stating that the abbreviation of the terms of the constitution is not automatic, but the opponent
derives from his decision to exercise the option of reducing the contrary
term to appear.