Cass., Sec. Civ. III, Judgement 16 November 2007, No 23813
The Conduct of the process S. opposition against the proposed decree by which the magistrate in Milan had ordered the payment of a sum of money in favor of P., in reimbursement of the costs of drinking water to which the S. had obliged as presenter of a property locatogli by the counterparty.
The magistrate said the opposition as notified later than the end of Article. 641 cpc
appealed the S., pointing out that the opposition had been lodged within days. 40 notification of the decree by the application is filed at the Registry of giudice, vertendosi in materia locatizia per la quale si applicano le norme in materia di lavoro. Il gravame fu respinto dal Tribunale di Milano nella considerazione che il principio addotto dalla opponente sarebbe stato corretto se il decreto fosse stato reso in materia locatizia da un giudice competente; nella specie, invece, il decreto era stato pronunciato dal giudice di pace, incompetente a giudicare in quella materia, sicché l'opposizione doveva essere proposta con citazione innanzi allo stesso giudice di pace, al fine ottenere la dichiarazione di nullità del decreto, proprio perché emesso da giudice incompetente; la conversione del ricorso in citazione avrebbe potuto essere ammessa nel caso (non verificatosi in concreto) in cui il ricorso fosse been notified to the other party within days. 40.
appealed to the Supreme S. by two reasons. Responds with the response of P. The PG asked that it be dismissed, pursuant to Art. 375 cpc, as manifestly unfounded. The applicant lodged a statement to the hearing. Reasons for Decision
The first reason the applicant, allege infringement and false application of Article. 447 bis cpc, said that the opposition in question, having a claim that is alleged to have under the lease and being subjected to the ritual of work under Articles. 447 bis and 414 of the CPC, has been correctly presented in the form of action. Appeal, in this case was promptly filed in the Court within days. 40 notification of the order.
The second reason, the applicant complains that the vices of the grounds on which would be incurred by the judge.
The reasons, which may be examined jointly, are unfounded.
Opposition to injunction shall be referred by art. 645 cpc, in functional and binding, to the knowledge of the judge who issued the decree. Thus, opposition to the injunction issued by the magistrate must necessarily be given before the same judge.
Under Article. 316 cpc, in the courts of peace demand is proposed by a summons to appear at the hearing fixed.
The problem is referred to the Court is whether, if the magistrate had issued the injunction in the matter that is outside, its jurisdiction (in this case that locatizia) and in relation to which it is expected that the application is made by an appeal, the opposition to the decree must be brought by summons or an action.
The answer is in the first sense, because, in this particular case, the opposition must be brought before the same court that issued, although it lacked jurisdiction, the decree, the mere purpose of obtaining a declaration of invalidity of the measure monitors. Pronunciation, this constituting still operational, and functional competence of the mandatory appellate court (see this latest way to Cass. July 11, 2006, No. 15720, which ruled that the appellate court, if it considers that introduced the dispute with the opposition exiles from their own expertise to the subject, may refer the case back to the one held responsible and to decline jurisdiction because the question of jurisdiction as follows has no impact on evaluations, merit, about the legitimacy of injunction opposite, including the question of whether the jurisdiction of the court that issued the decree, with the result. declaration of invalidity del provvedimento monitorio).
Ne consegue che la domanda, diretta alla declaratoria di nullità del decreto, deve essere introdotta nella forma prevista per il giudice adito (nella specie, la citazione), non assumendo alcun rilievo che la particolare materia (in relazione alla quale il giudice di pace ha, benché incompetente, emesso il provvedimento monitorio) preveda che la domanda sia proposta mediante ricorso.
Quanto alla convertibilità del ricorso in citazione, essa è ammessa, purché il ricorso stesso sia notificato alla controparte nel termine di gg. 40 previsto dall'art. 641 c.p.c. (termine, nella specie, non rispettato).
In conclusione, il ricorso, siccome manifestamente infondato, deve essere respinto, ai sensi dell'art. 375 c.p.c, essendosi il giudice adeguato al principio secondo cui: l'opposizione al decreto ingiuntivo emesso dal giudice di pace in materia esorbitante dalla sua competenza (nella specie, locatizia) deve essere proposta, per la dichiarazione della nullità del provvedimento monitorio, innanzi allo stesso giudice di pace, in virtù della sua competenza funzionale ed inderogabile sancita dall'art. 645 c.p.c. In tal caso l'azione deve essere proposta mediante citazione (e non mediante ricorso, previsto, in via generale, per la particolare materia trattata), ai sensi dell'art. 316 c.p.c. L'eventuale conversione del ricorso in citazione è ammissibile, purché they meet the deadlines for reporting established by art. 641 cpc
The applicant must be ordered to retaliate the counterpart of expenses incurred in the proceedings of cassation, as awarded in the device.
PQM
The Court rejects the appeal and order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings of cassation, which liquid in total € 600.00, of which € 100.00 for expenses, overheads and accessories in addition to the law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment