*******

The applicability of the rite of work in the event of death or personal injury as a result of accident.
On the basis of the law n.102 of 21 February 2006 on “Measures relating to the consequences of traffic accidents”, published in the Official Gazette No. 64 of 17 March 2006, to cases relating to compensation for damages for death or injuries resulting from traffic accidents, will apply to the rite of work. In fact, art. 3 of the Act to lay down rules of procedure states that “the cases relating to compensation for death or injuries resulting from traffic accidents, the rules of procedure referred to in Book II, Title IV, Chapter I of the Code of Civil Procedure. The legislature did not then specify the individual rules of the rite of work to apply, preferring a general reference.

The ratio of Law 102/2006 is evidently to provide greater protection to the damaged area, allowing a more rapid compensation, via the use of faster and more streamlined ritual of work, at least when following the road they are directly derived serious consequences , ie death or personal injury.

Thus, with regard to the delicate problem of interpretation concerning the proper identification of the competent court in cases of damages for death or injuries resulting from traffic accidents, there are three hypotheses:

Claim for damages for death or injury.
Claim for damages only to things.
Claim for damages for personal injury and material – cd. Hypothesis of overlapping objective (due to the cumulative sentence of applications by the claimant or effect of bringing a counterclaim by the defendant).
In the first case, according to the recent l. 102/2006 will apply the rules of procedure referred to in Book II, Title IV, Chapter I of the Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 409-441 CCP), consistent with the necessary modifications imposed by the substantial diversity of the objective elements of the action.

In the second scenario, however, continue to apply the ordinary proceedings, with the rules laid down in Articles. 163 et seq. of c.p.c. or Articles. 316 et seq. of c.p.c. depending on the jurisdiction – according to the criteria specified in Articles. 7 and 9 c.p.c. - Recognized respectively the Court or a Justice of Peace. In fact, while under Article. 7 Code, the justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction for claims compensation for damage caused by the movement of vehicles and boats, where the value of the dispute does not exceed EUR 15,493.71; based art. 413 c.p.c. - Between those raised by the Art. 3 l.No 102/06 – the power to decide at first instance for the Court. It can be concluded, therefore, that with the l. No 102/06 the legislature intended to shield the jurisdiction of the magistrate all disputes relating to damages for death or injury resulting from traffic accidents, leaving a Justice of the Peace responsible for accidents with damage only to property but within the limits of value of euro 15,493.71.

Certainly more complex than it appears, however, the identification of ritual applicable in the third case. The recent case on the merits (see the Justice of the Peace sent. December 29, 2006) should apply the ordinary proceedings, under Article. 40, comma 3 °, c.p.c. which require a test of the prevalence of this rite for discussion and decision of cases (subject to different rites), proposals, or cumulatively subsequently joined, for reasons related to incidental (art. 31 CCP), security (art. 32 CCP), ruling (art. 34 CCP), compensation (art. 35 CCP), reconventioning (art. 36 CCP), Save the exclusive application of special ritual when one of these cases fall between those indicated in Articles 409 (individual labor disputes) and 442 (disputes concerning public welfare and assistance required). The reference made by the last part of the third paragraph of Article. 40 c.p.c. - Attesting to the prevalence of special rite – is directed exclusively to matters listed in Articles. 409 and 442 c.p.c. and among those not covered at the causes of damages resulting from road traffic.

The issue of evidence from witnesses: foreclosure and disqualifications.
On the basis, therefore, Art. 3 of Law n.102 of 21 February 2006, cases relating to compensation for death and injuries resulting from traffic accidents will be proposed by an action with the simultaneous specification of the evidence (documentary or witness statements) for which the applicant intends truly.

However, in the rite of work, taking of evidence is expected to be tended to at the first hearing, because the second paragraph of Article 5. 420 c.p.c. provides that the hearing for discussion, the court considers that they are relevant, admits the evidence already submitted by the parties, in addition to those that the parties have not been able to bring first ordering, with the simultaneous order, for immediate hiring . ? According to the 6th paragraph then, if that is not possible, the court sets another hearing within the grace period of ten days.

It follows, therefore, that the taking of oral testimony should be made with the document instituting the proceedings, on pain of forfeiture, with the simultaneous obligation to quote (see Cass. Civ. April 12, 1983 No. 2586, February 14, 1984 No. 1133, April 13, 1987 No 3681).

However, in 1997, with decision No. 3725, the Supreme Court aligned itself with the doctrine of the majority, pointing out the unreasonableness of the estimate of the burden to quote the lyrics, even prior to the assessment of eligibility and relevance by the court (but, lately in the opposite direction, see also Court of Rome, sect. XIII, sent. No 29 March 2007).