Receiving an enforcement notice (atto di precetto) is already an extremely stressful event in itself. But what happens when the amount claimed includes default interest that appears excessive or incorrectly calculated? Many debtors make the mistake of choosing the wrong procedural instrument to challenge it, risking the loss of any possibility of defence. The Court of Cassation (Corte di Cassazione) has recently intervened to shed light on an issue that continues to generate uncertainty in daily legal practice.
The Concrete Case: A Dispute Between a Consortium and a Municipality
The matter examined by the Supreme Court arose from a contract entered into between a private consortium and a Municipality (Comune), concerning restoration and recovery works on a former convent. This is by no means an uncommon scenario in the Italian public procurement landscape, where disputes over payments — and the related interest — are a frequent occurrence.
The central issue concerned the amount claimed as interest in the enforcement notice (atto di precetto): the debtor contested the sum, but faced a procedural crossroads that is far from straightforward to navigate without expert guidance. Which remedy should be used? Opposition to enforcement proceedings (opposizione all'esecuzione) or opposition to enforcement acts (opposizione agli atti esecutivi)?
The Distinction That Changes Everything: Opposition to Enforcement Proceedings vs. Opposition to Enforcement Acts
In Italian civil procedural law, two distinct instruments exist for challenging enforcement proceedings, and the choice between them is far from inconsequential:
- Opposition to enforcement proceedings (opposizione all'esecuzione) (art. 615 c.p.c.) concerns the creditor's right to proceed with forced enforcement. It is used, for example, to contest the very existence of the debt, its enforceability, or the enforcement title (titolo esecutivo) upon which it is based.
- Opposition to enforcement acts (opposizione agli atti esecutivi) (art. 617 c.p.c.) concerns the formal regularity of the acts within the enforcement proceedings. It is the appropriate instrument when the creditor's right as such is not in dispute, but the correctness of a specific enforcement act is contested.
Confusing the two remedies can have very serious consequences: the judge may declare the opposition brought by means of the wrong instrument inadmissible, leaving the debtor without any legal protection.
The Court of Cassation's Answer: Interest in the Enforcement Notice Must Be Challenged Via Opposition to Enforcement Acts
By means of Order No. 23933/2026, published on 23 July 2026, the Court of Cassation addressed this boundary issue with precision, providing a clear and practically valuable ruling.
According to the Supreme Court, where the debtor intends to contest specifically the sum claimed as default interest in the enforcement notice (atto di precetto) — for example, on the grounds that it has been calculated incorrectly, over a wrong period, or by applying an incorrect rate — the appropriate procedural instrument is opposition to enforcement acts pursuant to art. 617 c.p.c., and not opposition to enforcement proceedings pursuant to art. 615 c.p.c.
