Financial Leasing Resolution and Law 124/2017: A Guide to the New Rules

1. The fact

   The issue stems from systemic litigation between leasing companies and user enterprises, amplified by the regulatory uncertainty following the introduction of Law 124/2017. According to reports in specialized legal publications, for decades courts applied Art. 1526 of the Civil Code by analogy to finance lease contracts, requiring the lessor to return collected installments in the event of resolution. The change in the legislative framework in 2017 introduced specific regulations which, however, raised doubts about their applicability to ongoing proceedings. The issue reached the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court, which clarified in a definitive ruling that the new law is not retroactive. Consequently, judges must now strictly identify the date on which the resolution became effective to decide which rule to apply.

2. 

   The rules in play

   The central provisions are Art. 1526 of the Civil Code and Law 124/2017. First, Art. 1526 c.c. provides that, in the event of resolution, the seller must return the installments collected, except for the right to fair indemnity for the use of the asset and compensation for damages. Second, Law 124/2017 (paragraphs 136-140) establishes that the lessor is entitled to the return of the asset and can keep the collected installments, but must pay the user any surplus resulting from the sale of the asset at market prices, net of the residual credit. Third, the function of these rules is to prevent the lessor's unjustified enrichment, ensuring they do not obtain both the asset and the full value of the contract.

3. What the case law says

   The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has clarified that Law 124/2017 is not interpretive in nature and therefore cannot be applied to events occurring before its entry into force. Consolidated case law emphasizes that for contracts resolved prior to August 2017, the reference remains Art. 1526 c.c., understood as a closing rule of the system. The courts have also specified that the indemnity due to the user must never transform into a profit higher than what the lessor would have obtained from the regular fulfillment of the contract. Thus, the principle of contractual synallagma is applied, balancing the depreciation of the asset with the capital invested by the leasing company to avoid unjustified financial imbalances.

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

   For lawyers dealing with leasing contract crises, three operational lessons emerge:

   1. Verify with extreme precision the effective date of the express termination clause or judicial resolution, as a single day can determine the shift from the Civil Code to Law 124/2017.
   2. Always propose a party technical expert report on the residual value of the asset at the time of return, which is essential for calculating fair compensation.
   3. Carefully evaluate the distinction between finance lease and enjoyment leasing for older cases, as case law continues to emphasize this difference for relationships established before the reform.

References: Articolo 1526 Codice CivileLegge 4 agosto 2017, n. 124

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 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