The contractual right of retention in ruling no. 16487 of 2024: meanings and legal implications

Ruling no. 16487 of June 13, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides interesting insights for understanding the contractual right of retention and its functioning within the relationships between creditors and debtors. This ordinance clearly highlights the peculiar characteristics of this right, relating it to other forms of security such as a pledge.

The contractual right of retention: definition and characteristics

The contractual right of retention is a form of self-protection recognized to credit institutions, allowing them to retain an asset until the claim is satisfied. However, as clarified by the ruling in question, this right has significant limitations:

  • Merely inter partes effect: the right of retention has no effects towards third parties, not preventing the circulation of the asset.
  • Absence of privilege: the retentor has no rights over the forced sale of the asset and cannot proceed with a direct sale.
  • Limitation on the refusal action: the right of retention allows only to refuse the return of the asset, without other forms of protection.

Comparison with the pledge

This ordinance highlights the fundamental differences between the contractual right of retention and the pledge. While the pledge grants the creditor a real security on the asset, and therefore a right of preference and the possibility to proceed with forced sales, the contractual right of retention is limited to a mere faculty of retaining the asset. The ruling states:

In general. The contractual right of retention is a form of self-protection of the credit institution with merely inter partes effectiveness (between debtor and retentor), resulting in that, unlike the pledge right - which provides a real security to the pledging creditor - it does not constitute any effect of blocking the circulation of the asset, nor an impediment to the enforcement action exercised by a third creditor and, moreover, does not grant the retentor a privilege on the forced sale of the asset or the right to proceed with a direct sale, but only the right to refuse the due return.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 16487 of 2024, therefore, represents an important clarification regarding the contractual right of retention, highlighting its limitations and differences compared to other forms of security. Understanding these distinctions is essential, both for legal professionals and individuals, in order to properly manage credit relationships and minimize legal risks. It is essential for those involved in such dynamics to have a clear awareness of their rights and duties, so that they can act in an informed and conscious manner.

Bianucci Law Firm