Supreme Court United Sections Ruling: Usury and Default Interest

1. The fact

   According to reports from NT+ Diritto del Sole 24 Ore and Diritto e Giustizia, the case stems from an opposition to execution proceedings initiated by a credit institution. The debtor challenged the default interest rate stipulated in the loan agreement, claiming it exceeded the legal usury threshold and seeking to have the entire loan declared interest-free. The central issue concerned the safeguard clause, a contractual mechanism providing for the automatic adjustment of the rate should it exceed legal limits. The matter reached the Supreme Court to determine whether such a clause constitutes a legitimate risk management tool or a device to evade the civil sanctions provided by law. The proceedings concluded with the ruling of the United Sections, which is final and sets a binding precedent.

2. 

   The relevant norms

   The legal framework is based on Law 108/1996, which introduced the threshold rate calculated on average market values. Art. 644 of the Criminal Code defines usury as the promise or provision of disproportionate interest. On the civil side, Art. 1815, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code provides for the so-called gratuitousness sanction: if usurious interest is agreed upon, the clause is void and no interest is due. Art. 1419 of the Civil Code on partial nullity also applies, allowing the tainted clause to be isolated without invalidating the entire agreement, alongside Art. 1224 of the Civil Code which specifically regulates default interest as compensation for delay.

3. What the case law says

   The case law of the Supreme Court has consolidated the principle that usury regulations also apply to default interest, albeit with calculation criteria separate from those for ordinary interest. With the decision in question, the United Sections ruled that the safeguard clause is fully valid because it demonstrates the parties' intent to remain within legal limits rather than evade mandatory rules. Furthermore, it was clarified that any usurious nature of the default rate results only in the nullity of the clause regarding delay, leaving ordinary interest intact. Finally, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies entirely with the debtor, who must demonstrate that the threshold rate was actually exceeded during the execution phase of the relationship.

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. What it teaches professionals

   1. Contract drafting: safeguard clauses must be clearly drafted to exclude any argument of evasive intent.
   2. Litigation strategy: in opposition proceedings, seeking total gratuitousness is ineffective if the defect relates solely to default interest; the defense should focus on debt recalculation.
   3. Evidentiary rigor: it is essential to obtain accurate econometric expert reports following Bank of Italy instructions for calculating default threshold rates.

References: Legge 108/1996Art. 644 c.p.Art. 1815 c.c.Art. 1419 c.c.Art. 1224 c.c.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 3 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