The Florentine Court believes it should adhere to the orientation in favor of the nullity, due to its conflict with mandatory provisions, of the act with which the power of attorney was conferred to the person delegated to the collection, thus departing from the ruling no. 7243/2024 of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
Indeed, analyzing the collection powers attributed, the delegated company should have been registered in the register referred to in art. 106 TUB, as provided for by art. 2 ln 130/1999, the communication of the Bank of Italy, dated 11.11.2021, entitled “Servicers in securitization transactions. Risk profiles and supervisory lines”, with which the Supervisory Authority substantially criticized the current practice of attributing powers of debt collection to entities not registered in the special register and, at the same time, invited all supervised entities to ensure powers of control over non-supervised entities. Furthermore, in this specific case, the controls implemented by the delegating entity towards the delegated entity are not sufficiently specified, which, conversely, can exercise the delegated powers with binding effects for the supervised company, with broad discretion in managing the setting of the debt collection activity.