Commentary on Judgment No. 8793 of 2024: Prescription and Circular Check in Forced Execution

Judgment No. 8793 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation provides important insights for a better understanding of the issue of prescription in the context of forced execution, particularly regarding circular checks. The central question concerns the possibility of action against the issuer of the circular check when the prescription period for collection has expired.

The Context of the Decision

The case examined by the Court of Cassation originated from a third-party seizure, where the bank issuing a circular check failed to pay the beneficiary within the time frame established by law. As specified in the ruling:

In general. In the case of third-party seizure, the lapse of the three-year prescription period for the collection of the circular check issued by a bank, as the third-party debtor, to comply with the assignment order, results in the elimination of any possible action against the issuer by the executing creditor, the beneficiary of the check, who cannot obtain, in an independent knowledge proceeding, a judgment ordering the bank to reissue the check or to pay the related funds, as every obligation under the check has expired, and typically lacks a legal interest to act based on the underlying causal relationship of the check's issuance, save for the allegation of a specific, legally appreciable utility obtainable from the knowledge proceeding and different from that offered by the enforcement title already held, supplemented by the assignment order.

This passage highlights how, once the prescription period has expired, the creditor can no longer claim against the issuer of the check unless they can demonstrate having a specific legal interest different from that already guaranteed by the assignment order.

The Practical Implications of the Ruling

  • The three-year prescription on circular checks is a crucial issue for creditors, as a missed deadline results in the loss of rights.
  • Banks, as issuers, cannot be compelled to reissue checks or pay overdue amounts unless there are legally relevant reasons.
  • The creditor must pay attention to the prescription periods and act promptly to avoid losing fundamental rights.

In this sense, the decision of the Court of Cassation places a strong emphasis on the responsibility of the creditor in recovery actions and in managing their rights. It is therefore essential that legal professionals clarify to their clients the importance of acting within the time limits set by law.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 8793 of 2024 represents an important reminder of the need to respect prescription periods in the context of forced execution. The Court of Cassation, with this decision, reiterated that the passage of the prescription leads to the extinction of actionable rights against the issuer of the circular check. Creditors must therefore be aware of the legal consequences arising from inaction to avoid compromising their ability to recover their debts.

Bianucci Law Firm