«The Court of Cassation has recently reaffirmed that a finding of nullity requires that all factual circumstances necessary to establish it must emerge from the case documents, including, among others, “the nature of the guarantee, since the Bank of Italy’s provision refers solely and exclusively to omnibus guarantees, not to those issued for a specific transaction”—as is clearly the case in the matter at hand. “Omnibus guarantees are specifically considered due to their role, as highlighted by the Italian Banking Association, as a tool for macroprudential protection of the banking system. Therefore, the investigation carried out by the then Antitrust Authority was limited to this type of guarantee, and only in relation to it can the provision have the privileged evidentiary effect recognized by the legal system.” Thus, the plaintiff’s argument—that “Provision No. 55/2005 of the Bank of Italy apparently concerns (probably due to a misinterpretation confusing omnibus guarantees with general banking guarantees) only omnibus guarantees…”—was found to be entirely without merit».
This was ruled by the Court of Reggio Emilia, which dismissed the claim of a private individual who had acted as guarantor for a commercial enterprise and sought to be released from the obligation on the grounds that the guarantee was allegedly null and void due to violations of antitrust regulations.
The Emilian court fully upheld the arguments of the defendant financial institution, which was represented by Cassinelli Studio Legale, with Nicola Cassinelli and Francesca Minelli.