Italian executive process reform

The first one, introduced by Art. 1, Para. 29 of the Law, amending Art. 26, Para. 1 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, concerns the establishment of a new jurisdiction for the seizure of credits when the enforced debtor is a public administration.

In such cases, jurisdiction shall lie with the judge of the place where the state attorney's office is located, in whose district the creditor is resident, domiciled, or has its legal office. The general rule in force in third-party seizure of credits procedures (i.e. the competent judge is located in the place where the third-party debtor is resident, domiciled or has its legal office) is partially superseded.

The second innovation, introduced by Art. 1, Para. 32, of the Law provides for the new Para. 5 and 6 of Art. 543 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code.

Para. 5 introduces two new cases of ineffectiveness of the foreclosure procedure claimable ex officio by the judge:

• failure to provide the debtor and the third party the notice of insertion of the claim in the related register (including its registration number) by the date of the appearance hearing set in the foreclosure claim;
• failure to file evidence of service in the foreclosure claim file.

Para. 6 limits the ineffectiveness of the foreclosure only against third parties to whom the foreclosure claim has not been served, or when the service report has not been filed in the foreclosure claim file, applicable only in cases of multiple foreclosures against several third parties, all of whom are debtors of the enforced debtor.

With these amendments, the Law overcame the limitation of Art. 164-ter, Para. 1, of the Application Provisions of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, which lacked possible sanctions for the non-compliance of the above-mentioned notification procedure.

---

Photo: Edler von Rabenstein - stock.adobe.com