I think the art. 190 CCP does not pose any problem of interpretation. Its wording is clear and unambiguous. Yet, even in the face of a standard, whose wording is flawless, has formed a Law of merit to say the least absurd and contradictory. I refer to the Judgement of the Court of Rome on 06 January 2007, which considers unacceptable the filing of the reply, if the same party has not done so before, to the filing of written submissions. Writes The Court: "The defendant is not in fact have never filed a closing statement, so that the filing of the so-called" replica "means that the possibility for the defendant to file its written submissions after the filing of the actress, the which is unacceptable because it affects deeply the logic of the case in art. 190 cpc. The filing of the reply is not is an option that the party can exercise quomodo libet, but it is the instrument of the case - as the same lemma shows - in contrast, replicate, to the adverse allegations. It follows that the filing of the reply is subject to the juris conditio the prior filing of written submissions " .
appears clear to all that the written submissions and the reply are profoundly different: the first is a written document that summarizes all the arguments of defense, both in fact and in law, also based on the issues raised during the investigation stage, the second, however, is limited to the dispute by the opposing arguments in written submissions and, therefore, is premised on the deposit and the closing statement of his opponent.
So, in my opinion, abhorrent and contrary to legislative requirements, the Court of Rome, purely and simply equate the closing statement to the reply, so assuming the possible intent of the lawyer treacherously to file the closing statement after the date provided by art. 190 CPC, in order to prevent the opponent to respond.
E 'clear, however, that where the defender is not only limt to challenge opposing arguments, but discussing issues in their own right, the judge should not consider them in its decision, but can not, for this, considered inadmissible the whole reply.
We hope that this decision, as well as a few other previously pronounced by the Court of Naples and the Court of Termini Imerese be reformed in the following instances.
Mr. Alessandro Reggiani
