Thus, the sentence the Court Supreme 239/2007, March 1, identifies the lis pendens improperly or in connection with the civil preliminary. Specifically, the statement reads as follows: the doctrine of jurisprudence under the system of the 1881 LEC supports implementation of the lis pendens, although not concur the triple identity of res judicata (Ss. on July 25, 2003, May 31, 2005, March 22, 2006), which the exception of lis pendens is a preventive institution or precautionary. It is the so-called alleged improper pendens or by connection, which actually integrates a civilian preliminary assumption. And in the same direction are pronounced two previous rulings of the Supreme Court, ruling 266/2005, of April 19, and sentence 992/2005 of 20 December citing the latter to the first: and no less relevant, so here are interested, it is the judgement of 19 of April of the current year (Appeal No. 5676/00) that, even admitting the differences between preliminary civil and as such lis pendens, today recognized in article 43 LEC of 2000, nevertheless applied the regime of the lis pendens to two processes followed under the term of the 1881 LEC despite not giving identity between litigation contracts but it is a conditioning of the second process by the subject of the first orin the words of its own judgment, an assumption that the operative is the subject that, for reasons of logic and legal connection, determine a preliminary between the object of litigation, of such extent that linked the outcome of the second to the first.
From the above we can conclude that the Supreme Court doesn't appreciate a substantial contradiction between the new law and the jurisprudential line that had been maintaining. (c) the different effects of the two figures on the dispute by creating the figure of civilian preliminary by jurisprudence in the bosom of the lis pendens, the effect that is tied to both situations was the same: the stay of proceedings. However, by separating these two figures, the LEC established that civil preliminary, what comes is the suspension of the course of the proceedings (article 43 LEC), keeping the dismissal to the lis pendens as a general rule (article 421 LEC). However, this result had already been assumed by the jurisprudence, even by applying the law of Civil procedure of 1881. In this sense, we can return to cite the sentence the Court Supreme 239/2007, March 1, which reads as follows: the natural effect of the interlocutory feedback is of the suspension of performances (as well for the legal regime of the LEC 2000 art. 43).