Tribunale di Busto Arsizio Sezione distaccata di Gallarate
Sentenza 14 maggio 2010, n. 195
Avverso le sentenze pronunciate dal Giudice di Pace a seguito di opposizione a sanzione amministrativa è ammesso l'appello ai sensi dell'art.26 del Decreto Legislativo 2 febbraio 2006, n. 40, che ha abrogato l’ultimo comma dell’art. 23, Legge n. 689/1981, con atto di citazione in quanto, in assenza di una specifica discipline in the appeal must be followed by the ordinary procedure, namely the ordinary rules in the Code, namely Articles. 341 et seq. Code, including Article. 342 under which the appeal proceedings must be brought by writ of summons and not by the action (see Tribunale Roma, Sec. XIII, Sent. 11/06/2008; in a way consistent with Benevento Sent Trib. 11-02 -2009; Trib Torino Sez. III Sent. 3l-10-2008; Trib Torino, Sez. III Sent. 18/06/2007; Verona Sent Trib. 03/29/2007).
Court of Busto Arsizio
separate Section of Gallarate
Judgement May 14, 2010, No 195
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Giudice del Tribunale Ordinario di Busto Arsizio, sezione distaccata di Gallarate, dott. Valeria Conforti in funzione di giudice d’appello, all’udienza del 14 maggio 2010 ha pronunciato e pubblicato mediante lettura del dispositivo e della concisa esposizione delle ragioni di fatto e diritto della decisione, la seguente:
SENTENZA
****
RAGIONI DI FATTO E DI DIRITTO DELLA DECISIONE
****
Tanto premesso, l’eccezione preliminare sollevata dall’appellata è fondata e pertanto l’appello va dichiarato inammissibile in quanto proposto dopo la decorrenza dei termini perentori di legge per impugnare.
In primo luogo giova osservare that today's appeal proceedings was introduced with use of art. 23, Law 689/1981, on the basis of orientation followed by some courts and also supported by an authoritative doctrine, that the introduction of two levels of court in relation to administrative penalties, not followed by specific provisions concerning the rules procedures to be applied in the second degree and first on what the shape of the application, should make us consider continuing the special legal regime designed art. 23 689/198l law on appeal and that, under the principle of beyond expiry of the ritual followed at first instance (see Viterbo Trib sent. January 24 2008).
Secondo l’indirizzo in parola all’applicazione del rito speciale anche in sede di gravame non sarebbe di ostacolo il disposto dell’art. 359 c.p.c. in base al quale "nei procedimenti d’appello davanti alla Corte o al Tribunale si osservano in quanto applicabili, le norme dettate per il procedimento di primo grado davanti al Tribunale" giacché il rinvio operato da tale norma non sarebbe agli artt. 163 ss., bensì ad ogni norma dettata per il procedimento di primo grado davanti al Tribunale.
Tra queste vi sono anche quelle di cui agli artt. 22 e 23 della legge 689/81, applicabili in primo grado davanti al Tribunale per le materie previste dai commi secondo e terzo dell’art. 22 bis legge 689/81, so a1 appeal proceedings before the Court and the Court in their area of \u200b\u200bexpertise, should apply the special procedure.
In this orientation, it opposes a much more widespread in law responsible and fully supported by this court in the same way which, in the absence of a specific discipline within the appeal should follow the ordinary procedure, namely the ordinary rules in the Code, namely Articles. 341 et seq. Code, including Article. 342 under which the appeal proceedings must be brought by writ of summons and not by the action (see Tribunale Roma, Sec. XIII, Sent. 11/06/2008; in a way consistent with Benevento Sent Trib. 11-02 -2009; Trib Torino Sez. III, Sent. 3l-10-2008; Trib. Torino, Sez. III, Sent. 18-06-2007; Trib. Verona Sent. 29-03-2007).
Le ragioni per le quali il decidente ritiene condivisibile questa soluzione è in via principale l’assenza di fondamento normativo del c.d. principio di ultrattività del rito, anche se speciale, seguito in primo grado, e cioè di un principio di omogeneità dei riti nei diversi gradi di giudizio a fronte, invece, della sicura valenza di altri principi che militano per la tesi seguita.
Segnatamente, la natura di "rito generale ordinario" della disciplina dettata dagli artt. 339 c.p.c. quale rito idoneo a regolare tutti i gravami di merito laddove, difetti, come nel caso in oggetto, una diversa volontà the legislature. (See Cass. 13564/2003) and, again, the principle of primacy of the ordinary on special rites in the light of the conjunction of the limbs. 359 and 40 third paragraph of the CPC, taking also into account the peculiarities of the segmentation and ritual in art. 23 Law 689/81.
All these elements lead to ultimately opt for a different reading of the reference in Article. 359 cpc believed, therefore, limited to the legal codes of Articles. 163 ff
should be noted that recently the Supreme Court seems to have endorsed the guideline in question, with order No. 14,520 in June 2009, the Supreme Court has shaped the applicability of the rules laid down in Chapter I of Title III of the Code of Civil Procedure and not the provisions of the special procedure provided for in Law 689/1981 pending appeal of the complexity of the proceedings for which it must take place before the Court in accordance with the ordinary rules that require and the technical defense that harmonize with the aforementioned rules relating to appeals under Chapter II of Title III of the Code of Civil Procedure.
seems clear that a direct result of this hermeneutic option is to consider that in this case, the appeal was wrongly brought an action instead of quote. Nevertheless
could operate the general principle of conservation of the zero - which does not allow to impose any penalty when the act has achieved its objective of Article. 156 3rd paragraph of Code of Civil Procedure and the related principle of the proposed conversion error for art. 159 c. III, CPC, with salvation of the effects of the Act, in this case dall'impugnazione.
E 'standing principle, in fact, that for which the proposition of the appeal of an action rather than quote does not apply to affect the admissibility of the appeal.
This provided that the appeal is timely, however, introduced, and that speed in such circumstances (appeal to be made with a summons under rule art. 352 CPC and erroneously introduced by the application) must be assessed based on the date of notification of the measure along with the other party hearing. And in fact for the formation of a valid report of the case in the form of the summons pursuant to Art. 342 Code of Civil Procedure is not appropriate filing of the appeal, although timely, necessary that the act be brought to the party within the deadlines laid down in Articles. 325, 326, 327, Civil Code, the legal form of notification (see Cass. Civ. 23412/08, 4498/09 844/06).
It is clear that today's tabulas for Appellant against the decision of Justice of the Peace filed on 02/21/2008 not notified and was filed on 04/06/2008 noificato but only on 8 May in 2009 and therefore outside the time limit so-called "long" provisions of art. 327 c, pc for such an appeal when the sentence had already become final.
follows, therefore, the necessary declaration of inadmissibility of the appeal.
It can not be regarded as operating on a different principle that the purpose of admissibility of the appeal, regardless of the type of measure used to introduce the appeal, should have regard to the terms depending on the model chosen and then specifically impugnatorio in this case the date of filing.
Trattasi di soluzione operata in chiave sostanziale dalla giurisprudenza nel diverso caso dell’impugnativa di delibera condominiale (Cassazione civile, sez. II, 30 luglio 2004, n. 14560) che, tuttavia, nell’ipotesi in esame dove viene in rilievo un giudizio di gravame avverso un provvedimento che tende a divenire definitivo se non impugnato, porterebbe a vulnerare e rendere incerto il momento del passaggio in giudicato della sentenza, anche nell’ottica della parte vittoriosa la quale, pur non avendo ricevuto la notifica dell’atto d’impugnazione non potrebbe essere certa della definitività del provvedimento.
Alla luce delle considerazioni esposte l’appello deve essere dichiarato inammissibile.
****
PQM
definitely brought on appeal by saying, every instance of an adverse ruling that rejected and rejected:
1) dismissed the appeal
2) costs offset
Gallarate May 14, 2010
THE COURT
0 comments:
Post a Comment