non essendo stata eccepita l'interruzione della separazione da parte convenuta


New Member
Hello everyone!
I'm rather puzzled by this sentence. It is a divorce decree.

E' parimenti incontestato che la cessazione effettiva di ogni rapporto fra i coniugi si protragga ininterrottamente dal giorno della loro comparizione innanzi al Presidente del Tribunale nella procedura di separazione consensuale, non essendo stata eccepita l'interruzione della separazione da parte convenuta, sulla quale ricadeva il relativo onere ai sensi dell'art.5 legge74/87

Here is my attempt:
...the interruption of the separation was not objected by the summoned party, who is the bearer of the burden pursuant to ...

To me the whole sentence is a mess in Italian "Legalese" but the last part in bold .... Do you think is understandable in English? or better.. in Legal English?
Your help will be highly appreciated.
Last edited by a moderator:
  • metazoan

    Senior Member
    US English
    This might help with readability (though I'm no lawyer):
    The summoned party, who bears the onus/burden of proof according to ..., did not object to the interruption of the separation.


    Senior Member
    UK, English
    I'm not a lawyer either :D but...

    "did not object to the interruption of the separation" suggests that there was an interruption but the summoned party did not object to it. I don't think this is the meaning. The divorce is granted by the court if there has been a continuous separation of not less than a certain number of years (or continuous for the time that has passed between the initial appearance in court and today's proceedings). The summoned party could therefore object to the divorce if he/she could prove that the separation has not been continuous.
    The point of the court's ruling is that the summoned party has not raised such an objection (whatever the truth of the matter) and therefore the divorce can go ahead.
    Someone else can put that in legal language!

    PS The divorce proceeding is initiated by the petitioner, while the summoned party is the respondent.
    Last edited:


    New Member
    My take is simpler. It is always simpler in English. Italian law is weighed down by unnecessary terms of art.
    When a legal separation happens a clock starts. From separation to divorce there must be no break in that legal state. That is, there cannot be a period where the parties resume a relationship that the law will view as going back into the marriage relationship.

    The clause in question recites as required by procedures that there there is no evidence of a break in the separation, and therefore the parties can proceed with the divorce. In California where I practice law, the courts have held that a husband living separated from his wife had broken that separation by regularly bringing his laundry to his wife's house for her to do. Hope that is clear

    Antonio Di Stefano, Attorney