WRITTEN QUESTION P-0343/01

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Charging of compound interest

The Commission has an ambivalent attitude to the question of banking activities in Italy. On the one hand, in its communication of 30 November 2000 it dismisses the justification for Petition No234/2000 by Mr Gianni Colangelo on behalf of ADUSBEF on the practice followed by Italian banks of charging compound interest on loans, by making a series of erroneous statements.

The first concerns Article 1283 of the Italian civil code which, it maintains, regulates the question of compound interest in Italy. In fact, Article 1283 of the civil code does not regulate, but prohibits the charging of compound interest in normal lending activities. According to Decision No 87/103/EEC(1) of 12 December 1986 and Bank of Italy provision No 12 of 3 December 1994, the charging of compound interest is a product of a bank cartel agreement.

The second error concerns the reference to Article 25 of legislative decree No 342/99 of 4 August 1999, legitimising compound interest which, being prohibited by article 1283 of the civil code contrary to what the Commission maintains, benefits only banks, as is self-evident from a reading of the text of the provision.

On the other hand, the Commission considers admissible the complaint against law No 108/96 laying down provisions prohibiting usury, lodged with the Commission on 15 December 2000 as protocol 15860 by the ABI and AIBE, although it is clear that not only does this law not run counter to the provisions of the Treaty and Directives 89/646/EEC(2) and 89/647/EEC(3), but, being intended to protect consumers, is being infringed by the banks by means of a cartel agreement which prevents borrowers from paying off early or renegotiating fixed-rate loans.

In the light of the above remarks, will the Commission not alter its stance and bring proceedings against Italy in respect of its adoption of legislative decree 342/99 of 4 August 1999 and decree law No 393 of 29 December 2000, which are in breach of Articles 3, 10. 81, 82 and 86 of the Treaty, and against the ABI for infringement of Article 82 of the Treaty?

(1) OJ L 43, 13.2.1987, p. 51.

(2) OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

As far as the issues raised by the Honourable Member are concerned, the following comments can be made.

First of all, the Commission wishes to bring to the attention of the Honourable Member that it has had a meeting with a representative of the Associazione Difesa Utenti Servizi Bancari Finanziari Postali Assicurativi (ADUSBEF) to discuss the problems concerning anatocism and other alleged abusive practices carried out by Italian banking intermediaries. On the occasion of that meeting a submission/complaint, together with numerous annexes, was submitted to the Commission. This submission/complaint, even though it regards several points which were dealt in the previous petition no. 234/00, provides further elements for the assessment of possible infringements of the EC Treaty provisions on competition on the part of ABI (Associazione Bancaria Italiana). Consequently, the Commission opened an investigation in order to ascertain the existence of those infringements; depending on the outcome, the investigation might lead to the opening of an infringement procedure against ABI and/or the Italian government.

As concerns the admissibility of the submissions regarding Law 108/96 on usury, the Commission wishes to point out that a copy of the submission submitted by ABI and AIBE (Associazione italiana Banche Estere), to which the Honourable Member refers, and a copy of the subsequent petition presented by the European Banking Federation, has been sent to the Italian government for comments. That is the usual practice with such complaints. Such a procedure does not imply a consequent decision on admissibility; the Commission always invites the concerned governments to submit their observations when an complaint concerns a matter within its competence. In the letter enclosing the petition of the European Banking Federation, the Commission invited the Italian government to clarify by 20 February 2001 the contents of the Legislative Decree no. 394 of 29 December 2000 and the reasons which had justified it. The date of 20 February 2001 has been extended for a month in order to take into account the new rules adopted by law No 24, on 28 February 2001.