Supreme Court Joint Sections on Proving Credit Ownership in Securitizations

1. The fact

   The case stems from an opposition to a payment order sought by a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to recover a debt originating from a bank loan. According to reports from Il Sole 24 Ore and Altalex, the case reached the Supreme Court after the debtor challenged the assignee company's standing, claiming a lack of definitive proof that their specific debt was part of the purchased block of claims. The company had only produced an extract from the Official Gazette, which generically announced the acquisition of a portfolio of credits with homogeneous characteristics. The Third Civil Section referred the issue to the Joint Sections to resolve a conflict in case law over the sufficiency of legal publicity as proof compared to analytical contractual evidence.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The key provisions are Article 58 of the Consolidated Law on Banking (TUB), which governs the bulk assignment of legal relationships, and Article 2697 of the Civil Code regarding the burden of proof.

   1. Article 58 TUB provides that publication in the Official Gazette dispenses with the requirement for individual notification, making the assignment enforceable against debtors.
   2. Article 2697 of the Civil Code requires those taking legal action to prove the facts constituting their claim, namely the actual acquisition of the specific credit.
   3. Law 130/1999 on securitizations integrates these rules by simplifying procedures for SPVs, without derogating from the general principles of civil procedure regarding proof of title.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   The case law of the Supreme Court has clarified that publication in the Official Gazette serves an exclusively notice function and not an evidentiary one. While in the past some rulings considered the mere indication of homogeneous categories in the Gazette sufficient, the Joint Sections established that, in the face of a specific challenge by the debtor, the creditor must provide documentary proof of the assignment contract. The Court emphasized that credit ownership is a constituent element of the claim and cannot be presumed based on a formal requirement aimed only at making the assignment effective against third parties. The principle requires the production of contractual extracts or notarized certifications attesting to the inclusion of the credit within the scope of the transaction.

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. When acquiring NPL portfolios, it is essential to secure immediate access to detailed assignment schedules to prevent procedural obstacles in court.
   2. Do not rely solely on Official Gazette publications as proof of standing when credit ownership is contested by the debtor.
   3. Prepare relevant contractual extracts, notary certifications, or assignor declarations uniquely identifying the debt subject to litigation.
   4. Timely and specifically object to the lack of proof of credit ownership, placing the burden of documentary production on the opposing party.

References: Articolo 58 D.Lgs. n. 385/1993 (TUB)Articolo 2697 Codice CivileLegge n. 130/1999Articolo 1264 Codice Civile

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 10 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