Mortgage and Notification: Commentary on Ordinance No. 9817 of 2024

The recent Ordinance No. 9817 of April 11, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important clarification regarding the mortgage registration provided for by Article 77 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973. In a context where tax collection procedures can be complex and laden with significant legal consequences, the ruling deserves careful analysis.

The Regulatory Context

Article 77 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973 establishes the rules regarding mortgage registration as security for amounts due as taxes. A crucial aspect, subject to debate, is whether such registration can occur without the prior notification of the payment order pursuant to Article 50, paragraph 2 of the same decree. The Court, in its ordinance, clarifies that mortgage registration does not constitute an act of forced expropriation.

  • Mortgage registration is an act that does not require the notification of the payment order;
  • It is considered an alternative procedure to forced execution;
  • Notification of the payment order is necessary only if forced expropriation has not begun within one year of the notification of the payment notice.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Mortgage pursuant to Article 77 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973 - Prior notification of the payment order pursuant to Article 50, paragraph 2, of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973 - Exclusion - Basis. The mortgage registration provided for by Article 77 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of September 29, 1973, does not constitute an act of forced expropriation, but refers to an alternative procedure to actual forced execution, so it can be carried out even without the need to proceed with the notification of the payment order mentioned in Article 50, paragraph 2, of Presidential Decree No. 602, which is prescribed for the case where forced expropriation has not begun within one year of the notification of the payment notice.

This ruling represents a fundamental reference point for understanding collection procedures and the resulting mortgage registrations. The Court sought to highlight that, although mortgage registration may seem like a step towards forced expropriation, it actually constitutes a distinct and less restrictive action.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation has important implications for taxpayers and legal practitioners. In particular:

  • It makes the mortgage registration process more streamlined and less bureaucratic;
  • It allows social security and tax authorities to protect their claims more effectively;
  • It reduces the risk of legal disputes regarding the validity of mortgage registrations.

In this way, Judgment No. 9817 of 2024 not only clarifies the existing regulations but also provides a useful tool for managing disputes related to tax collection.

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 9817 of 2024 represents an important milestone in the Italian regulatory landscape concerning mortgage registrations. The distinction between mortgage registration and forced expropriation, as clarified by the Court, is fundamental for understanding the rights and duties of taxpayers and administrations. It is therefore essential that all parties involved are adequately informed about these new provisions to avoid future disputes and to ensure proper application of the law.

Bianucci Law Firm