The doctoral thesis deals with the relationship between the oppositions of articles 632 and 933 of the Code of Civil Procedure and more specifically the procedural issues that arise in the (most common) case of cumulative but also in that of their consecutive lodging. In particular, the historical origin of each opposition, the object of the trial of each legal remedy are listed, the issues of late claims and the abidance of the pre-trial principle are analyzed and a comparison is made of the legal protection provided by each one of them and analysis about the debtor’s legitimate interest for the lodging of both either cumulatively or consecutively and this because the opposition of art. 632 offers more effective protection as it cancels the enforceable title while the opposition of art. 933 is wider in time because it cancels the enforcement actions carried out after the issuance of the enforceable title. Subsequently, the doctoral thesis examines the debtor’s ability for the cumulative lodging of the opposition of art. 933 with the same writ of the opposition of art. 632 when the latter is subject to the jurisdiction of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance, the accumulation due to relevance of the opposition of art. 933 which is against the following acts of enforcement in the competent court of the opposition of art. 632, procedural issues from the different deadline for lodging each legal remedy, the application or not of the proof only by documents in the case of the cumulative lodging, the allegations that can be presented with these writs and the additional allegations of the two oppositions, the obligation or non for the observance of the principle of arising all the allegations in one writ in case of the consecutive lodging of the two legal remedies, more specific reasons of the two oppositions such as the certain and of a fixed amount claim, the objection of set-off and time-barred and the other one of acting on the contrary to the principles of good faith and morality, the matter of the pendency of the two oppositions, the procedural phenomenon of the final decision’s presedent from each opposition but also from the payment order, the one of the enforceability of the first-instance modification decision, the other one of the implicit acceptance of the rejection decision on the opposition of art. 632 in relation to the right to lodge the opposition of art. 933 and finally the issues that arise from the lodging legal remedies such as the opposition of default of appearance, the appeal, the cassation or the request for de novo judicial review, always in the case of their cumulative and consecutive lodging.