The case at issue breaks with the established precedents of the higher courts and sets the principle that, once that the right to register a mortgage has been denied, despite the «average caution» in registering the judicial mortgage, the proceeding creditor can be held liable under art. 96 c.p.c., paragraph 2, «when he or she has not used the average caution in registering mortgages on assets for a value proportionate to the secured loan, pursuant to the criteria envisaged by law». Put differently, the court considered the creditor’s conduct to be an abuse of the economic security which can make his or her proceedings “abusive” and, therefore, not complying with the subjective requirement consisting in the «average caution». Hence, the Court of Cassation, by extending the liability in trial beyond its traditional boundaries, offered a right solution to the shortcomings in the debtor’s protection, stemming from the established case-law and literature which did not deem material the abusive conduct of the creditor when he or she used his or her own security improperly. However, the demands for protection could have been better met by looking at substantive law. Indeed, creditors registering a judicial mortgage outside the limits prescribed by law obtain a disproportionate extension of their securities for their benefit, thereby impinging on the debtor’s opposed interest. By diverting the security instrument from the function it shall perform, creditors commit an abuse of the law which, per se, results in the breach of a legally relevant interest. This suffices to call for tort liability, which is the widest and most general solution put forth by the legal system.

La sentenza afferma il principio secondo il quale, accertata l’inesistenza del diritto a iscrivere ipoteca, sebbene non difetti la «normale prudenza» nell’iscrizione dell’ipoteca giudiziale, in capo al creditore procedente è configurabile la responsabilità ex art. 96 c.p.c., comma 2, «quando non ha usato la nomale diligenza nell’iscrivere ipoteca sui beni per un valore proporzionato rispetto al credito garantito, secondo i parametri individuati nella legge». Il giudice intravede nel contegno del creditore un abuso del diritto della garanzia patrimoniale, idoneo a caratterizzare la sua iniziativa nel processo come “abusiva” e, di conseguenza, a integrare il requisito soggettivo del difetto di «normale prudenza». La Cassazione, estendendo l’applicabilità della responsabilità processuale al di là degli ambiti tradizionali, ha inteso dare una risposta alla lacuna di tutela per il debitore, derivante dal consolidato orientamento dottrinario e giurisprudenziale che non dava rilievo alla condotta abusiva del creditore che avesse usato in modo distorsivo lo strumento di garanzia a sua disposizione. Tale risposta, tuttavia, poteva essere rinvenuta sul piano del diritto sostanziale, limitandosi a considerare che il creditore che iscriva ipoteca giudiziale oltre i limiti consentiti dalla legge realizza un abuso del diritto che, di per sé, rappresenta una condotta lesiva di un interesse giuridicamente rilevante, sufficiente a fondare la piú ampia e generale risposta approntata dall’ordinamento giuridico rappresentata dalla responsabilità per fatto illecito ex art. 2043 c.c.

La responsabilità del creditore per l'iscrizione d'ipoteca giudiziale sproporzionata

GIOVA, Stefania
2017-01-01

Abstract

The case at issue breaks with the established precedents of the higher courts and sets the principle that, once that the right to register a mortgage has been denied, despite the «average caution» in registering the judicial mortgage, the proceeding creditor can be held liable under art. 96 c.p.c., paragraph 2, «when he or she has not used the average caution in registering mortgages on assets for a value proportionate to the secured loan, pursuant to the criteria envisaged by law». Put differently, the court considered the creditor’s conduct to be an abuse of the economic security which can make his or her proceedings “abusive” and, therefore, not complying with the subjective requirement consisting in the «average caution». Hence, the Court of Cassation, by extending the liability in trial beyond its traditional boundaries, offered a right solution to the shortcomings in the debtor’s protection, stemming from the established case-law and literature which did not deem material the abusive conduct of the creditor when he or she used his or her own security improperly. However, the demands for protection could have been better met by looking at substantive law. Indeed, creditors registering a judicial mortgage outside the limits prescribed by law obtain a disproportionate extension of their securities for their benefit, thereby impinging on the debtor’s opposed interest. By diverting the security instrument from the function it shall perform, creditors commit an abuse of the law which, per se, results in the breach of a legally relevant interest. This suffices to call for tort liability, which is the widest and most general solution put forth by the legal system.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11695/62565
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact