For the purposes of the legitimacy of the opposition in late injunction (pursuant to art. 650 cod. Proc. Civ.) is not sufficient notification of the irregularity of the measure monitor, but should also proof - the burden of which falls sull'opponente - that because of irregularities, he said, the quality of ordered, did not have timely knowledge of this decree, and has not been able to offer a timely opposition. This test shall be considered achieved whenever, like the means of implementation of the notification of the said measure, both believe that the act is not timely received in the sphere was known to the recipient.
Where the opposite party wishes to contest the timeliness of the opposition late in art. 650 cod. proc. Civ. in relation to defective service as well as reconstructed by the opponent falls on the same to prove the fact on the possible prior knowledge of the decree by dell'ingiunto that is able to make the opposition untimely late and, therefore, inadmissible. (In this case, the Joint Sections, correcting reference to justification in the light of the burden of proof imposed on the opposite, have confirmed the decision under appeal had been identified by which the admissibility of late opposition to injunctions against irregularities reported of state administration, in relation to art. 144 cod. proc. Civ. with the Attorney General of the State rather than at the district as the recipient of the act entitled, by virtue of Article. 11 of Royal Decree No. 1611 of 1933 however, the opposite, which had challenged the deficiency of service, he could prove that the same notification had been made before so good, so that the opposition made in accordance with art. 650 cod. proc. Civ. unacceptable).
0 comments:
Post a Comment