The Supreme Court of Cassation recently stated that following the legislative amendment introduced by Law 134/2012, the amended Article 345(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure forbids the filing of new documents during appeal. This is regardless of whether the documents appear to be essential – which was the selective parameter under the previous regulation – except for when the party proves the impossibility of filing them before the court of first instance for reasons beyond its control.(1)
With Decision 26,522/2017, the Supreme Court of Cassation answered an important question concerning the inadmissibility of filing new documents during appeal proceedings. The claimant argued that Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been violated, as the Court of Appeal had violated the ban on filing new documents during appeal proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Cassation underlined that the appeal decision had applied a United Sections decision to justify the admissibility of filing of new documents, under which the filing of new evidence is permitted when essential.(2) Therefore, the filing of new documents removed all doubt surrounding the facts relevant to a decision, regardless of the fact that the party had incurred the regime of forfeitures for different reasons.
The court also underlined that case law could not be applied in this specific case, as it referred to the previous Article 345 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was modified by Law 134/2012. Given that the final decision was issued after the abovementioned law came into force, the amended Article 345(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure should be applied with the effect that the filing of new documents during appeal is forbidden, except when the party proves the impossibility of filing them before the court of first instance for reasons beyond their control.
In light of the above, the Court of Cassation stated the following:
"In appeal proceedings, the new text of art. 345 para 3 c.p.c. forbids the filing of new documents during appeal, regardless of the fact that they appear to be essential, that was the selective parameter in the previous regulation, except for the case when the party proves the impossibility to file them before the Court of First Instance for reasons beyond their control".
On the basis of this principle, the Court of Cassation accepted the main request and annulled the appealed decision.
This article was first published by the International Law Office, a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. Register for a free subscription.
For further information on this topic please contact Costanza Mariconda at Mariconda e Associati by telephone (+39 02 795 212) or email ([email protected]). The Mariconda e Associati website can be accessed at www.studiomariconda.com.
Endnotes
(1) Court of Cassation, Decision 26522 of November 9 2017.
(2) Court of Cassation, Decision 10790 of May 4 2017.
