Joint Sections of the Supreme Court: Credit Splitting and Abuse of Process

1. The facts

   The case stems from a dispute between a private healthcare facility and a local health authority. According to reports from ecnews.it, the healthcare facility had requested and obtained two separate payment orders for services rendered in two consecutive months, based on the same framework agreement. While the first order was not contested by the public administration and became res judicata, the second was challenged by the local health authority. The core of the dispute concerned the abusive splitting of the credit. The public entity's defense argued that the creditor had no valid reason to initiate two separate procedures, other than to multiply legal costs at the debtor's expense. After the first two levels of judgment, which ended with the declaration of the claim's inadmissibility, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Joint Sections of the Supreme Court were called upon to resolve the conflict regarding the nature of the sanction to be applied when splitting occurs in the absence of an objective interest on the part of the creditor.

2. 

   The relevant legal framework

   The regulatory framework revolves around constitutional and statutory principles.

   1. Article 111 Constitution: enshrines the principle of fair trial and reasonable duration, which is violated when the judicial system is clogged by a plurality of lawsuits that could be merged into one.
   2. Articles 1175 and 1375 Civil Code: impose duties of fairness and good faith on parties in the implementation of the obligation, extending these obligations to the stage of judicial protection.
   3. Article 100 Code of Civil Procedure: establishes that to bring a claim before the court, one must have an interest; in credit splitting, the interest must be objective and not merely subjective or emulative.
   4. Articles 88 and 92 Code of Civil Procedure: concern the duty of loyalty of the parties and the allocation of litigation costs, which the judge can use as a sanctioning tool to discourage abuse of process.

3. Case law orientation

   The case law of the Supreme Court has undergone a profound evolution. In the past, it was believed that the creditor was free to request partial performance, emphasizing the right to refuse partial payments provided for by the Civil Code. However, following landmark rulings by the Joint Sections, the opposite view has prevailed: splitting a unitary credit is considered an abuse of process. The case law has clarified that there is no absolute prohibition, but rather a burden of proof resting on the creditor. The creditor must demonstrate that the fragmentation corresponds to an objectively assessable interest, such as the need to act urgently for the portion of the credit supported by written evidence, while the remainder requires complex evidentiary proceedings. Without such justification, any subsequent claim is met with inadmissibility, since the right of action cannot be exercised in a manner that unjustifiably harms the debtor's position and judicial economy.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Key takeaways for legal professionals

   Legal professionals must draw clear practical lessons to protect clients from procedural sanctions.

   1. Unitary portfolio assessment: before taking legal action, lawyers must review all due claims against the same debtor arising from the same relationship.
   2. Evidentiary proof of objective interest: if splitting is indispensable, objective interest must be documented in advance, such as differing evidentiary requirements or an imminent limitation period affecting only certain claims.
   3. Prudent procedural strategy: always prefer joining claims or consolidating proceedings to prevent defenses of abuse of process that could invalidate the entire recovery action.

References: Art. 111 CostituzioneArt. 1175 c.c.Art. 1375 c.c.Art. 100 c.p.c.Art. 88 c.p.c.Art. 92 c.p.c.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 21 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction