When it is difficult for members of the public to understand the referee’s decision

In the field of alternative dispute resolution, there is a growing need to move beyond the current system, which involves three judges (with the prospect of a fourth being introduced for social security matters), where there may be overlaps in jurisdiction or a risk of citizens failing to identify the correct point of contact. Gianpaolo Barbuzzi, president of the ACF (Arbitrator for Financial Disputes), explains that ‘a single arbitrator for banking, financial and insurance matters would simplify citizens’ access to out-of-court dispute resolution, as they would no longer have to wonder, at the outset, which arbitrator is competent in each particular case’. This unification, as well as resolving the issues linked to the ‘not inconsiderable grey areas between the jurisdictions of the three current arbitrators’, would bring significant ‘benefits in terms of an overall view of the various issues of interest, greater authority for the out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, and the rationalisation of the operating costs of the three current systems’.

A first concrete step in this direction is the project to create a single portal providing access to the ACF and ABF systems. This initiative has been developed jointly by Consob and the Bank of Italia, and is due to be launched in the first half of 2027. This portal aims to make dispute resolution more attractive for both ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) bodies.

At present, the boundary between the remit of the Banking and Financial Ombudsman (ABF) and that of the ACF is often very blurred. The situation risks becoming even more complex with the introduction of the Insurance Arbitrator (Aas) and a potential fourth social security arbitrator. A telling example of this complex division of responsibilities can be seen in unit-linked policies: the ACF has jurisdiction over disputes between distributors and policyholders, whilst the AAS takes over for subsequent dealings with the insurance company. And if even the arbitration bodies, made up of experts, have to hold regular coordination meetings to allocate tasks correctly, it becomes extremely difficult for members of the public to find their way around.

The administration of securities custody contracts clearly highlights these overlaps. Jurisdiction is determined according to the nature of the dispute: the ABF has jurisdiction if the client alleges a breach of obligations relating to the banking aspects of the contract, such as delays or problems in the transfer of the securities portfolio, or the failure to provide documentation relating to capital losses.
The ACF assumes jurisdiction if the dispute concerns breaches of portfolio disclosure obligations, a failure to provide information on capital increases and the exercise of option rights, or issues relating to the subscription and placement of mutual fund units. In these cases, the complaint concerns conduct that has prevented the client from making informed investment decisions. Neither body has jurisdiction: where the dispute relates exclusively to the interpretation or application of tax legislation (such as the correct application of capital gains tax), both the ABF and the ACF declare that they lack jurisdiction.

Another area where there is significant overlap is that of probate proceedings involving financial instruments. The ABF’s jurisdiction is triggered if the heirs complain of an unjustified delay in the handling of the case, without, however, disputing the value of the securities. It also deals with matters relating purely to the banking administration of the inheritance case in the event of the liquidation of shares issued by cooperative banks. Finally, it handles disputes concerning the liquidation of securities within a case file where the consent of all co-heirs is lacking, provided that the claim does not raise preliminary issues requiring examination under investment legislation.