Revolving cards: when it pays to start a dispute

There is some concern in financial companies. The Supreme Court's ruling No. 12838 of 13 May 2025 on revolving cards has certainly shaken up the environment. Let's go in order. The ruling pronounced the nullity of a credit opening contract with a 'revolving' type of card, signed with a supplier of goods and services with an agreement with the financial intermediary, but not registered in the list established at the UIC (Italian Exchange Office). From Findomestic, the company involved in the affair and contesting the Supreme Court's decision, they specify: 'At present there is still no reliable estimate of the size of the dispute, neither as regards our company nor with reference to the sector'. There is concern, however. In any case, Findomestic points out that since 2010 it no longer adopts the practice of promoting and underwriting new revolving credit contracts by parties not registered in the register of intermediaries.

"The nullity of the credit opening contract," explains lawyer Letizia Vescovini, "can only affect the interest and cost items agreed upon in the contested contract, which, if the nullity is upheld, will not be due; or rather, the contractually agreed interest will not be due, but the legal interest on the amount financed will be due. Such interest and costs, if still unpaid, will not be due by the holder of the financing and, if instead they have already been paid, they will be imputed to the principal by decreasing the overall debt; the restitution of the principal sum paid to the client plus the legal interest will still be due.

Since a ruling such as the one in question always leads to the attention of the customers of financial institutions that have signed such contracts, it is legitimate that the question of whether to proceed with litigation should be raised. "It is opportune," Vescovini continues, "to assess the costs/benefits of any legal action: it is advisable, before initiating a lawsuit, for the cardholder to request a statement of recoverable interest and expenses and to compare it with the costs required to initiate the procedure and, above all, the expenses in the event of losing the case; if we are dealing with modest recoverable amounts, the risk of losing the case should always be carefully considered because it might really not be worth it.

One can always appeal to the Abf, which provides for much more modest start-up costs. Those who do not sue on their own, however, but make use of technical assistance, should clarify in advance what the required fee will be, since there is no reimbursement of legal fees in Abf proceedings. "In the event of a successful claim for the nullity of the contract, at best no interest and expenses will be due but the capital will still have to be repaid; it is necessary to be wary of those who bring actions to see the entire debt cancelled because this is not the case," Vescovini continues.

The other aspect to be considered is that the nullity applied by the Court of Cassation derives from the imperative nature of the sector legislation that was allegedly violated, pursuant to Article 1418 of the Italian Civil Code, and that this imperative nature might not be considered as such in other decisions, as it is possible to change orientation on these issues both in the courts of merit and in the Court of Cassation: the text of sentence 12838 already acknowledges two different contrasting orientations on the imperative nature of the violated legislation. And when there is a contrast sooner or later one arrives at the United Sections of the Supreme Court, which is a bit like the Epiphany: all holidays are taken away.