the single judge of the Court of Rovigo-Sec. seconded by Dr. Mauro Martinelli Adria-December 7, 2010 with the sentence was pronounced on the proper interpretation and application of Article. 96 cpc
Below is the text of the sentence.
Court of Rovigo
sub-office of Adria
Judgement of December 7, 2010
... omission ... Reasons for Decision
RR and AG acted against DC art. CPC 669 g to obtain a finding that it had never "had or exercised servitutis simultaneous possession" (which supposedly should be understood as "not corresponding to the right of servitude") on plaintiff's property and consequently withdrew its possessory issued forth by the Court on 7-11 May 2009.
The defendant objected, calling for the condemnation of the actors within the meaning of art. Code of Civil Procedure 96 (giving up being due to the application for an order pursuant to art. 614 bis cpc).
However, first of all as it should be noted from the known case of United Sections (Cass., ON, February 24, 1998, No 1984) the possessory proceedings has been considered bi-phasic, caratterizzato da una prima fase sommaria e da una seconda di merito, entrambe aventi ad oggetto lo stesso accertamento, ovvero la lesione di una situazione di possesso.
L’interpretazione nomofilattica è stata recepita anche dalla recente novella del codice di rito (l . n. 69/2009), la quale semplicemente ha reso eventuale la fase di merito (art. 703, IV comma c.p.c.) prendendo consapevolezza del fatto che nella prassi il più delle volte l’emissione dell’ordinanza interdittale è idonea a comporre il contrasto sorto in relazione ad una situazione di fatto.
Gli attori, dunque, avrebbero dovuto nel termine di sessanta giorni dal provvedimento che aveva deciso sul reclamo proposto dagli stessi sig.ri R. and G., file an appeal in the Registry of this deciding authority, has instead decided to introduce the case by writ of summons, pursuant to the provisions of artist's. 669 g Code, under which has nothing to do with the process owners, because the reference made by art. 703, paragraph II, the so-called protective uniform ritual requires an express provision that defects in that field, which as I said there.
In any case, applying the constant jurisprudence of conversion of form, in essence, it is considered timely since the introduction of the trial, the case was registered under (July 23, 2009) before the expiration of sixty days the communication of the order of complaint (June 28, 2009).
the merits, we observe that the complaints raised by the plaintiffs have already been duly considered interdittale the order issued by this authority on 7 May 2009 in Case No. 163/08 (produced by the same plaintiff): the existence of a real possession relevant to the exercise of the right of way less (for more peaceful until the start of the acts of disruption in by Messrs R. and G), inhibition of the same by affixing a bar, the invalidity of the exception to forfeiture under the determination of the starting point dalla scoperta del non funzionamento della chiave consegnata per aprire il lucchetto posto a chiusura della sbarra (ottobre/novembre 2007), la volontarietà di impedire a D. C. di utilizzare il passaggio (c.d. animus spoliandi).
Sarà, dunque, sufficiente richiamare per relationem il provvedimento citato - integralmente confermato in sede di reclamo - per destituire di fondamento le ragioni attoree riproposte in questa sede.
Tuttavia, giova argomentare sul punto essenziale (per non dire unico) della dispiegata azione: la necessità o meno che il possesso tutelato con l’azione di spoglio sia pacifico (e ciò a prescindere dalle ragioni indicate nella richiamata ordinanza, in virtù delle quali il possesso was peaceful until the start of verbal harassment and physical impediment to the next step implemented by today's players).
not only the claim of irrelevance of the requirement for the use of Pacific art. 1168 cc used in the prevailing law of legal and technical specifications (see Cass., October 7, 1991, No. 10,470: "In the possessory proceedings is relevant solely to the facts existing at the time of the examination and of the disturbance, with the result that The experiment of the re-integration is sufficient even if possession any unlawful or abusive or bad faith provided they have the character or appearance of property rights in rem and power in fact, not been exercised by mere tolerance of the person entitled "Cass., June 15, 1991, No 6772; Cass., May 15, 1998, No 4908; it should be noted that the assertion is not denied even by Cass., December 22, 2004, No 24026, where the mere reading of the maximum would believe it was necessary to the requirement of the Pacific, while the adjective seems to refer to the fact that it was peacefully annexed to the operation of a situation corresponding to the right "sufficient and necessary for eligibility and the recognition of the merits of the same actions as designed to protect only a de facto relationship with a person one thing, although characterized by mode Typical operating costs are only, therefore, the deduction and detection, respectively, of an enduring, voluntary and conscious conduct by the plaintiff, at the time of the examination or dislocation, of use of the property he has the character appearance of that of the holder of a right in rem (see: Cass., sec. 11, sent. May 15, 1998, No. 4908, Cass. Civ., sec. ^ 2, sent. July 5, 1997, No. 6093 ).
For the purposes of its protection, there is, also, that the possession have satisfied the requirements for adverse possession (see: Cass. Civ. Sent. ^ 2, sent. February 15, 1984, No. 1139, Cass. Civ ., sec. ^ 2, sent. January 23, 1982, No 1139) and is expressed in concrete acts of continuous use well, provided that the owner can restore the ad libitum period (see: Cass. Civ., sec. ^ 2, sent. November 11, 1997, No. 11119), and, since it counts with the animus expressed by normal and inherent ' exercise of de facto power over the thing, it is for those who dispute the possession of documents proving the existence of tolerance or licenses that apply to exclude it (see: Cass. Civ., sec. ^ 2, sent. May 23, 2000, n . 6738; Cass. Civ., sec. ^ 2, sent. April 13, 2000, No. 4810, Cass. Civ., sec. ^ 2, sent. July 5, 1999, No 6944), but comes from reading codicistiche provisions.
Article. 1140 cc does not indicate possession of the requirements of the "peacefulness", nor does the art. 1168 cc, which governs the instrument of protection, art. 1144 cc excludes possession corpore retaining or if the result of acts of tolerance of others, implicitly pointing in the opposite direction, such as the apprehension of the possession of the item can be also occurred against the will of the holder (this fact is a causal justification in its historical reason recognition of possessory protection: it cives ruant to weapon), art. 1163 cc deny that having acquired a violent or illegal purposes dell'usucapione can benefit, if not the date of cessation of violence or harassment, which confirms that the ownership can also be purchased in a violent and illegal and can be legitimately tutelato con l’azione di reintegra.
Per tale ragione la domanda è infondata: il convenuto ha esercitato il possesso corrispondente al diritto reale di servitù di passaggio.
Merita altresì accoglimento la domanda riconvenzionale di condanna al pagamento di una somma equitativamente determinata per responsabilità aggravata, ai sensi del’art. 96, III comma c.p.c.
La disposizione recentemente introdotta nel nostro ordinamento prevede che il Giudice possa applicare anche d’ufficio, in assenza di una domanda, alla parte soccombente la condanna al pagamento di una somma equitativamente determinata.
Si tratta di una disposizione che prescinde totalmente dal danno subito dalla parte; It is therefore legitimate to attribute nature of a penalty of a public nature, because it aims to punish the conduct of the case of the party which violates the constitutional principle of due process duration (for affect not only the length of a single process, but also on all other chain) incorporating an abuse of process or a distortion of the purposes recognized by Article 24 of the Constitution (the fact that the money is paid to the counterparty does not affect the legal nature of the penalty and interest publicistic protected).
Article. CCP 88 is thus an additional sanction than the art. 92, paragraph I, the second recorded in a circular inserting cpc sistematica dagli articoli 91,92 e 96 c.p.c.
La determinazione della natura giuridica è assai rilevante per individuare successivamente i criteri ai quali parametrare la somma di denaro liquidata dal Giudice, posto che la norma non dà alcun tipo di riferimento. È opportuno altresì osservare come l’istituto in esame si ponga in termini di tensione con il ripetuto indirizzo giurisprudenziale che nega la compatibilità costituzionale dei cosiddetti danni punitivi (Cass., 19 gennaio 2007, n. 1183; si ricorda, tuttavia, come nel regolamento comunitario n. 864/2007, il considerando n. 32 escluda l’ammissibilità di una norma comunitaria che determini un risarcimento del danno senza funzione risarcitoria per contrasto internal public order only in case of excessive punitive damages, not excluding the legal institution tout court).
should therefore check what requirements for the application of the provision in question.
According to a strict reading, justified by the danger of a reading of the provision is incompatible with the Constitution for vagueness, the conditions of applicability of the third paragraph would be those first two. This position is based in particular on the fact that together with the introduction of the provision in question was repealed Art. 385 Code of Civil Procedure, which provided that the decision on costs the Court of Cassation, also office could order the unsuccessful party to pay to the counterparty an amount actually determined not exceeding double the maximum tariff, if it believes that the action or the constitution to defend the defendant had been put in place with gross negligence. This interpretation, therefore, considers that the reform has sought to extend the provision repealed to the Order as a general principle.
According to a more acceptable - also based on the different terminology in the draft lexical Mastella and the Decree-Law amending then converted into Law 69/2009 - it is considered that the phrase "in any case" has a broader meaning behave according to the first two paragraphs of Article 96 CPC: This is also consistent with the alleged independence of the case (in any case, when ruling on costs in accordance with Article 91 ") and diversity of legal (damages the first two paragraphs, the third penalty). However, to avoid even in this case concerns the constitutionality of vagueness, and to prevent the judge may always freely apply the aforementioned penalty if he loses, it seems appropriate to limit the applicability of the provision in those activities that are attributable to the subjective by way of fraud or gross (not serious), or to conduct negligente che ha determinato un allungamento dei termini del processo (in questo senso di è pronunciato il Tribunale di Terni, 17 maggio 2010 e anche Tribunale di Varese, 27 maggio 2010).
Nel caso di specie la colpa emerge chiaramente dall’aver pervicacemente contrastato il diritto riconosciuto a D. C. di passare per l’unico accesso esistente per giungere alla propria abitazione anche a seguito dell’accoglimento della domanda possessoria, nonché dopo la conferma in sede di reclamo, senza darvi attuazione spontaneamente e introducendo irritualmente un giudizio di merito fondato su un solo presupposto di diritto (la non pacificità del possesso tutelato), infondato in fatto ed in diritto.
I criteri di determination of the amount outstanding, under the given penalty, may be obtained from the intensity of the subjective (intentional and negligent possessory impractical measure of the introduction of these proceedings) and the severity of the conduct of abuse of process and the impact on its duration (the defendant for three years did not have access to his property).
Based on these parameters is paid the sum of € 5,000.00.
The costs of litigation, as well as paid in the device, following the negative outcome.
PQM
the single judge of the Court of Rovigo - sez. detached Adria - in the person of Dr.. Mauro Martinelli, any further applications exception, or deduction disregarded instance, definitely in Case No. RG 183/2009, hereby orders:
a) reject the plaintiff's application for listing of instances of inquiry;
b) reject the requests made by RR and AG against DC;
c) conviction within the meaning of ' art. 96, paragraph III of the CPC, RR and AG to pay the sum of € 5,000.00 in favor of DC;
D) ORDER RR and AG to pay the costs of litigation incurred by DC for fees paid in € 1304.00 and € 1420.00 for fees, as well as general expenses of 12.5% \u200b\u200bVAT and the CPA as required by law.
Adria, December 7, 2010.
THE COURT
Dr. Mauro Martinelli
0 comments:
Post a Comment