Commentary on Ordinance No. 16445 of 2024 on the Conclusion of Credit Opening Contracts

The recent ordinance of the Court of Cassation, No. 16445 of June 13, 2024, offers significant insights for legal practitioners, particularly regarding credit opening contracts. This ruling is situated within a regulatory framework that has seen important changes, especially with the entry into force of Law No. 154 of 1992, which introduced the requirement of written form for banking contracts.

The Regulatory Context Prior to Law No. 154 of 1992

Under the regime prior to Law No. 154 of 1992, credit opening contracts could also be concluded through facta concludentia, that is, through concrete behaviors demonstrating the existence of the agreement. This mode of conclusion is of significant importance, as it allows for overcoming the rigidities imposed by subsequent regulatory developments.

As highlighted in the ruling's maxim:

(DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS, DISTINCTIONS) - IN GENERAL Credit opening contract - Regime prior to Law No. 154 of 1992 - Conclusion by facta concludentia - Admissibility - Burden of proof - Content. Under the previous regime before the entry into force of Law No. 154 of 1992, which imposed the obligation of written form for contracts related to banking operations and services, the conclusion by facta concludentia of a credit opening contract was permitted, with the consequence that proof of the granting of credit for these contracts can be provided by any means, including recourse to presumptions, given that the prohibition established by Article 2725 of the Civil Code, to which Article 2729, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code refers, is not applicable to credit opening contracts concluded during a period when they were not required to be in writing under penalty of nullity.

The Implications of the Ruling

The Court of Cassation reaffirmed that, for credit opening contracts concluded before the introduction of the written form requirement, proof of credit can be provided by any means, including the admissibility of presumptions. This aspect is crucial for the parties involved, as it broadens the modes of proof and allows rights to be enforced even in the absence of written documentation.

  • Conclusion of contracts by facta concludentia, even in the absence of writing.
  • Possibility of resorting to presumptions to prove credit.
  • Relevance of pre-1992 regulations in the current context of banking operations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 16445 of 2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important reminder of the flexibility of the modes of conclusion of credit opening contracts in the period prior to the written form requirement. This ruling not only clarifies the rights of the parties but also offers a significant opportunity for a better understanding of the contractual dynamics in the banking sector, highlighting how modes of proof can influence the outcome of legal disputes. Therefore, it is essential for companies and professionals in the sector to be aware of such jurisprudential and regulatory developments.

Bianucci Law Firm