Civil appeal: what the notice of appeal must contain after the reform

Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rewritten by Legislative Decree No. 149 of 10 October 2022 and again by Legislative Decree No. 164 of 31 October 2024. Under the text now in force, an appeal is brought by a writ of summons containing the particulars required under Article 163, and must state clear, concise and specific grounds; for each ground, on pain of inadmissibility, it must identify the specific part of the judgment being challenged and, in relation to it, set out the objections raised to the lower court’s findings of fact and the alleged breaches of law, together with their bearing on the judgment under appeal. At least ninety clear days must elapse between the writ of summons and the first hearing, or one hundred and fifty if service is made abroad. A corresponding rule applies to labour proceedings under Article 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The requirement is not a mere formality: it delimits the matters devolved to the appellate court, because a partial appeal entails acquiescence to the parts of the judgment not appealed (Article 329, second paragraph). As to the transitional rules, Article 35 of Legislative Decree No. 149/2022, as amended by Law No. 197 of 29 December 2022, applies the rules on appeal to appeals brought after 28 February 2023, the relevant date being that on which the appeal was lodged and not that of the judgment under appeal; the 2024 amendments follow Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 164. However, the notion of the proceedings to which the new rules apply remains debated and must be checked against each individual case file.

The risk is not merely having to correct the document. A declaration of inadmissibility closes the appeal and, under Article 358 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal cannot be brought again even if the statutory time limit has not yet expired: once the declaration becomes final, the first-instance judgment becomes res judicata, with the appellant ordered to pay the costs of the appeal stage and, where the conditions are met, the doubling of the unified court fee under Article 13(1-quater) of Presidential Decree No. 115 of 30 May 2002. The case law developed under the previous text does not require sacramental formulas or the drafting of an alternative judgment, but does require the document to make intelligible which parts of the ruling are challenged and the reasons for the challenge. This must, however, be read in light of the rule now in force, which reserves the sanction of inadmissibility for the identification of the challenged part and the two related indications, whereas clarity and conciseness are not, in themselves, admissibility requirements: a ground that is brief but generic remains inadmissible, while a long-winded submission runs the risk that the challenged part is not clearly identified. The assessment nonetheless remains for the court on the merits and must be calibrated to the individual ruling.

Summary note by the CommercialistiAvvocati network, based on specialised legal and practice sources. The text does not reproduce original contributions and does not constitute professional advice.