Analysis of Judgment No. 19505 of 2024: The Pledge of Productive Movable Assets

The recent ruling No. 19505 of July 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial theme in the Italian legal landscape: the pledge of productive movable assets. This decision not only clarifies the methods of implementing the pledge but also highlights the differences compared to the non-possessory pledge, as provided by Law Decree No. 59 of 2016. Let's take a closer look at the key points of this ruling and its impact on the real right of guarantee.

The Pledge of Productive Movable Assets and Custody

According to the ordinance under examination, the granting of a productive movable asset in pledge by delivering it to a third party appointed as custodian is perfectly admissible. This means that, although the asset is delivered to a custodian, the debtor can continue to use it, provided there is a contractual title that allows such use. This aspect is fundamental, as it allows the debtor not to be completely dispossessed of the asset, a situation that could compromise their productive activity.

Differences with the Non-Possessory Pledge

It is important to emphasize that this method of implementing the possessory pledge is different from the non-possessory pledge, introduced by Article 1 of Law Decree No. 59 of 2016. The latter is characterized by the absence of dispossession, replaced by registration publicity in a specific register with the revenue agency. In other words, while in the possessory pledge the debtor can maintain possession of the asset, in the non-possessory pledge this is not possible, and therefore the debtor must rely on publicity to protect their rights.

Pledge of productive movable asset - Delivery to a third party appointed as custodian - Use of the asset by the debtor - Admissibility - Implementation methods - Non-possessory pledge as per Article 1 of Law Decree No. 59 of 2016 - Differences. In terms of real rights of guarantee, the granting of a productive asset in pledge through delivery to a third party appointed as custodian does not prevent the debtor from using it, through a contractual title that attributes to them, by virtue of what has been previously agreed between the parties, the possession of the asset, as it is a method of implementing the possessory pledge, not comparable to the non-possessory pledge, introduced by Article 1, paragraph 4, of Law Decree No. 59 of 2016, converted by Law No. 119 of 2016, which is characterized by the absence of dispossession, replaced by registration publicity in a dedicated computerized register established with the revenue agency.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 19505 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the possibilities offered by the pledge of productive movable assets and clarifies in detail the methods of implementing this institution. The distinction between possessory and non-possessory pledges is crucial for understanding the legal and practical implications for debtors who intend to secure their obligations without compromising their activity. This decision not only enriches the jurisprudence in this area but also provides useful indications for the daily practices of industry operators.

Bianucci Law Firm