Siena Court; Movable Assets Enforcement Section; Order of July 10, 2024; Presiding Judge: Dr. Giulia Capannoli.

We highlight the recent ruling of the Siena Court, Presiding Judge Giulia Capannoni, Order No. 287 of July 10, 2024, which reaffirmed the principle that:

• the notice of publication in the Official Gazette «indicating the categories of the transferred receivables in bulk» is sufficient to prove the active legitimacy of the assignee «without requiring a specific enumeration of each one, as long as the common elements considered for the formation of the individual categories allow the identification of the transferred receivables without uncertainty.»
• «the assignee can prove the inclusion of the disputed receivable in the transfer through the production:

1. a) of the notice of publication in the Official Gazette, with specific reference to the transferred receivable (indicating the specific “NDG”);
2. b) of the credit agreement along with the list of transferred positions and related details;
3. c) of any extrajudicial communications (such as letters) that have adequately informed about the transfer;
4. d) of the assignor’s confessional statements.»

The Siena Judge, referring to what has been «also affirmed by the majority of case law (see moreover the established case law of the Florence Court of Appeal, including rulings Nos. 2234/2022, 2377/2022, 2431/2022)» stated that the declaration of the assignor produced in the records by the assignee, indicating the individual receivable related to the debtor and the disputed relationship among those transferred in bulk, constitutes a factual declaration intended to prove an essential element of the claim (the ownership of the receivable), which the Judge deemed sufficient to “eliminate any doubt on the matter.”

The Court found the objection of non-notification of the transfer to the debtor pursuant to Article 1264 of the Italian Civil Code completely irrelevant, as it only serves to make the payment to the assignor unenforceable against the debtor.

In conclusion, the ownership of the receivable was deemed proven, resulting in the dismissal of the opposition and the condemnation of the executed party to pay the legal costs.

Judgment: restricted distribution

info@studiolegalevilla.eu

Article by: Avv. Francesca La Monica, Dr. Michelangelo Motta