Order no. 16576 of 2024: Forced Execution and Destination Constraints on Funds

The issue of forced execution against local authorities is of growing importance in the Italian legal landscape. Order no. 16576 of June 13, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications regarding the rights and duties of third parties involved in the seizure of funds. In particular, the ruling focuses on the issue of destination constraints on funds and the obligation for third-party custodians to make a negative declaration.

Context of the Ruling

The Court ruled on a case where a seizure was made from a third party other than the treasurer of a local authority. The central issue concerned the burden on this third party to make a negative declaration, in the face of sums subject to a destination constraint. The Court established that the third party does not have this burden, as they are not subject to information obligations that require factual and legal assessments relating to the treasury relationship.

In general. In the context of forced execution against a local authority, in the event of seizure of sums subject to a destination constraint from a third party other than the treasurer, this third party does not have an obligation to make a negative declaration because, despite being the custodian and debtor of sums owed to the authority, they cannot be considered subject to information obligations involving factual and legal assessments pertaining to the treasury relationship. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court, quashing the lower court's judgment, excluded the compensatory liability of Poste Italiane S.p.A. for having made a positive declaration pursuant to art. 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though the sums held by the institution were unavailable pursuant to art. 159, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 267 of 2000).

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has several practical implications. Firstly, it clarifies that third-party custodians of sums designated for local authorities cannot be held liable for declarations that do not take into account the destination constraint. This is particularly relevant for financial institutions and other entities that may manage public funds.

• Exclusion of compensatory liability for third parties.
• Clarity on destination constraints for funds.
• Clarification of third parties' information obligations in seizures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order no. 16576 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the rights and duties of third parties in cases of seizure of funds designated for local authorities. This ruling not only clarifies the interpretation of current regulations but also offers greater protection for the third parties involved, reducing the risk of liability for errors in managing information related to destination constraints. It is essential for all operators in the sector to stay updated on these legal developments to ensure proper management of obligations and responsibilities related to forced execution.