Joint and several liability and limitation period: acts interrupting time under Article 1310 of the Italian Civil Code also operate against the unaware guarantor

By judgment no. 1376/2026 of 24 May 2026, the Court of Cagliari dismissed the objection to a payment order brought by a guarantor, upholding the order issued in favour of a leading operator in the management of segregated portfolios of non-performing loans, assisted by Cassinelli Studio Legale.

The opposing party, guarantor of a commercial company, had pleaded that the claim was time-barred, contending that he had never received the notice of termination for breach forwarded by the assigning institution in 2014, as it had been sent to an address allegedly not corresponding to his residence, and had further raised the lapse of the creditor’s rights under Article 1957 of the Italian Civil Code.

The decision is notable for the rigorous application of the settled principle governing joint and several liability, of particular relevance in banking litigation downstream of securitisation operations. Moving from the joint and several nature of the suretyship obligation under Article 1944 of the Italian Civil Code, the Court applied Article 1310, paragraph 1, of the Italian Civil Code, drawing on the authoritative teaching of Cass. SS.UU. no. 13143/2022, pursuant to which “in cases of joint and several liability of several obligors, the interruption of the limitation period effected by the creditor against one of the obligors also takes effect with respect to the other jointly liable co-debtors, pursuant to Article 1310, paragraph 1, of the Italian Civil Code, without any requirement that the latter be aware of the interrupting act”.

Consistently with the orientation also expressed by Cass. no. 30186/2022 and, most recently, by Cass. no. 26734/2025, it follows that the interrupting act addressed to the principal debtor produces full interrupting effect also against the guarantor. The defensive submission relating to the non-receipt of the notice of termination by the guarantor was therefore held to lack any decisive bearing, the interrupting effect of the act against the debtor company being sufficient.

As to the parallel plea of lapse under Article 1957 of the Italian Civil Code, the Court confirmed the parties’ full freedom to derogate from the six-month time limit, in line with the settled case law of the Supreme Court (Cass. no. 28943/2017, no. 9245/2007, no. 21841/2024 and, most recently, no. 2683/2025), and further ruled out the conditions for the application of the consumer protection limits set out in Cass. no. 27558/2023, in light of the guarantor’s holding of a 48% share in the debtor company – an indicator of a functional connection incompatible with consumer status under the criteria laid down by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU Tarcău, Case C-74/15, and Dumitraș, Case C-534/15) and by Cass. SS.UU. no. 5868/2023.

The respondent party was assisted by Nicola Cassinelli and Vittorio Bertorello.