ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Romualdo Richichi, Studio Zanetti Vitali
on the nature of the case) empowered to issue pro - visional orders. In most cases, this judge was able to broker an agreed solution and could immediately grant temporary measures that allowed the parties to manage at least the more urgent issues related to relocation (eg, accepting employment offers; finalising house rentals or purchases and making arrangements concerning school enrolments or health insurance). Conversely, under the new Cartabia procedure, in order to speed up the proceedings after the active intervention of the judge, almost all the weight of the process related to the defence of the parties is now allocated to the initial phase of the judgment: this means that, before appearing in court for the first hearing, according to Article 473 bis 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is required to file three separate written defences (the first petition and two extended briefs by which all requests directed at fact-finding must be submitted to the court), while the defendant will be called to submit two different briefs. Additionally, the deadlines for submitting the last two defences are very tight, requiring that replies be filed within five or ten days from the filing of the preceding briefs, notwithstanding the fact that, due to technicali - ties related to the functioning of the IT system adopted by Italian courts, full days may pass before a defence filed by one of the party become available to the other. Furthermore, whenever proceedings involve children, both parties are required to attach to the first written defences a large quantity of documents, which at least in theory should reveal their financial position, even if neither of them has made a financial request. Before the Cartabia Reform, whenever talks con - cerning a possible relocation between parents who had already ceased to live together in an “official” way (being legally separated or, if unmarried, hav - ing obtained orders concerning custody) entered an impasse, starting proceedings immediately tended to be a very sensible choice, since there was a reason - able expectation that the intervention of the judge could soon bring about an agreement or a decision without forcing the parties to incur excessive expens - es. Now, however, the “wheels” of the new proceed - ings have become so ponderous that setting them
in motion should not be an option until any possible alternative has been ruled out. According to Article 473 bis 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties may request an urgent order ( provvedimenti indifferibili ). Although these types of urgent orders should not be issued in the context of already-pending proceedings, it would be possible to apply for them if a relocation is so imminent that it would be impossible to wait for the outcome of an ordinary judgment; consequently, applying for an urgent order would not be a viable option whenever a decision is needed concerning a move abroad well in advance thereof. Therefore, a contested relocation can still possibly be handled fairly simply when the parents disagreeing over the move are still living together (ie, are not legally separated or divorced), or when they are not but the order in place will not need to be modified in any way despite the change in the place of residence of the child – which, while not completely impossible, is very unlikely, in particular when: • the orders in place are very detailed; • the relocation would impact on the visiting calen - dar in place, making it unviable; and • the new circumstances impact the financial arrangements related to maintenance. In this case, the authorisation to relocate could be sought by starting the simplified proceedings set out in Article 473 bis 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, even in this case, on the one hand, some judges require that the full Cartabia procedure be fol - lowed anyway, possibly with tighter deadlines, and, on the other hand, if after the filing of the petition one of the parties applies for a “full” legal separation or custody judgment, the case should be dealt with in the context of the latter proceedings, and only urgent and temporary measures could be taken in the sim - plified judgment. Furthermore, according to the letter of the law, the parties will be required to provide the court with a full financial disclosure in any proceed - ings dealing with children, and therefore also in the frame of the simplified judgment set out in Article 473 bis 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the pre -
67 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook