Permanenet Residendence Visa In Greenland

Civil Cassation: self-adhesive intervention can propose questions

Supreme Court - Third Civil Chamber, Judgement of 16 October 2008, n.25264

The third involved in a process, where its intervention can be defined as self-adhesive, can submit their own application to the autonomous specification conclusions, subject to the preclusion of evidence. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its guidance that it had been thwarted by the court on the merits. According to the Supreme Court, in fact, "To argue that the intervening self-adhesive, ie the third party intervenes in the process of other people to rely on a comparison of some of them right on the object or employee entitled raised in the trial stage (first paragraph of Article 105 CCP), may do so until they are not stated conclusions (as Article. cpc 268 first paragraph), but without being able to submit their own independent questions posed by foreclosures for the Arts. 183 and 184 cpc the ability of the original parties to the process of carrying out certain acts (such as that proposed new claims), would in fact nullify any value and usefulness of the case institution of the operations covered in that first paragraph of art. 105 cpc (the primary and litisconsortile), in which fundamental and inescapable is indeed the work of the volunteer assertive intervening to protect their diritti.In other words, it is clear that the regulations that have allowed the aforementioned interventions in the process of the third could be made until the moment of clarification of the conclusions would lose all meaning if it is not logical and legal permitted the same - according to the interpretation of Article. 268 CCP, which contrasts here - the wording of the question, which is the essence intervention concerned. In fact, the term "documents" used by the aforementioned art. 268 certainly the legislature intended to refer exclusively to investigating the intervener should play, as a result of the application proposal, demonstrating the claimed right in the sense that, which took place the final wording of the requests of the original parties to the inquiry process, it remains intervener precluded the possibility of carrying out further investigations and other activities. "There are also no merit to the concerns expressed about the court's unconstitutional reading of the rule set out above," according to the principle that the intervener in the process not può svolgere attività istruttoria preliminare e probatoria che la fase eventualmente avanzata del processo stesso non consenta più alle altre parti originarie e, pertanto, della soggezione del terzo alle preclusioni già formatesi tra le parti in causa, la formulazione della domanda da parte del terzo medesimo non può comportare per definizione alcun ritardo nei termini di decisione della causa stessa o, a maggior ragione, lesione del contraddittorio, dovendo la domanda suddetta essere decisa alla stregua delle prove già acquisite in atti senza poterne espletare altre e svolgendosi comunque l'intervento del terzo in un giudizio in cui le altre parti interessate sono già regolarmente costituite o sono state messe in grado ritualmente di farlo".