The Court of Cassation in its Order No. 28553 of November 6, 2024, in the dispute concerning a sale and lease back transaction, confirms the functional interpretation of Article 2744 of the Civil Code, with correlative application of the envisaged prohibition of covenant of commission to any type of agreement employed to obtain the unlawful coercion of the debtor to submit to the will of the creditor, accepting in advance the transfer of ownership of one of his assets as a result of his default. However, it is not deemed necessary, when ascertaining in concrete terms the violation of the aforementioned prohibition, for the three symptomatic indices of jurisprudential elaboration to coexist, since it is rather up to the judge of the merits, whose task it is, on remand, to examine them, to verify that the complex negotiation transaction is preordained to achieve, instead of the exchange function, a prohibited cause of guarantee, also revealed by other and different indices.
La Corte di Cassazione con l’ordinanza n. 28553 del 6 novembre 2024, nella controversia relativa a un’operazione di sale and lease back, conferma l’interpretazione funzionale dell’art. 2744 cod. civ., con correlativa applicazione del previsto divieto del patto commissorio a qualsiasi tipo di convenzione impiegata per ottenere l’illecita coercizione del debitore a sottostare alla volontà del creditore, accettando in via preventiva il trasferimento della proprietà di un suo bene in conseguenza del suo inadempimento. Non viene peraltro ritenuta necessaria, in sede di accertamento in concreto della violazione del richiamato divieto, la congiunta compresenza dei tre indici sintomatici di elaborazione giurisprudenziale, dovendo piuttosto il giudice del merito, a cui compete, in sede di rinvio, il relativo esame, verificare che la complessa operazione negoziale sia preordinata a realizzare, in luogo della funzione di scambio, una vietata causa di garanzia, rivelata anche da indici altri e diversi.
G. Di Rosa, Sale and lease back e divieto del patto commissorio
G. Di Rosa
2025-01-01
Abstract
The Court of Cassation in its Order No. 28553 of November 6, 2024, in the dispute concerning a sale and lease back transaction, confirms the functional interpretation of Article 2744 of the Civil Code, with correlative application of the envisaged prohibition of covenant of commission to any type of agreement employed to obtain the unlawful coercion of the debtor to submit to the will of the creditor, accepting in advance the transfer of ownership of one of his assets as a result of his default. However, it is not deemed necessary, when ascertaining in concrete terms the violation of the aforementioned prohibition, for the three symptomatic indices of jurisprudential elaboration to coexist, since it is rather up to the judge of the merits, whose task it is, on remand, to examine them, to verify that the complex negotiation transaction is preordained to achieve, instead of the exchange function, a prohibited cause of guarantee, also revealed by other and different indices.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.