Case C-65/25, IFIS NPL INVESTING: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2025 – IFIS NPL INVESTING SpA v JM, OT, VR, CL
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, credit policy, credit transfer, financial legislation, general legal principle, loan, money laundering








C_202502840EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2840


2.6.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2025 – IFIS NPL INVESTING SpA v JM, OT, VR, CL


(Case C-65/25, IFIS NPL INVESTING)

(C/2025/2840)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IFIS NPL INVESTING SpA

Defendants: JM, OT, VR, CL

Questions referred







‘(A)


Must EU law and, in particular, anti-money laundering legislation, and the general principles of effective protection, transparency and objective good faith and its corollaries regarding disclosure obligations, be regarded as precluding national law governing en bloc (or cumulative) assignments of non-performing loans – the legislation applicable to the case in question prior to the approval of decreto legislativo del 30 luglio 2024, n. 116 (Legislative Decree No 116 of 30 July 2024), which entered into force on 13 August 2024, implementing EU Directive [2021/2167 (1)] – which has the following characteristics, and if so, under what conditions:










(a)


it does not provide for a written form ad substantiam (as an essential requirement under penalty of invalidity) or ad probationem (as a merely a procedural requirement), in particular in the form of an authentic instrument or an authenticated document under private signature or, in any event, methods to be adopted when drawing up such documents that ensure they bear a precise date. This the case, in particular, where the contracting assignee is a consumer;










(b)


until the entry into force of that decree, there was no obligation to be entered in the supervised registers for entities conducting the activity of en bloc assignment, in so far as they did not engage in any financial activity, as established by the [Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation)], and, consequently, they are automatically excluded, on account of the absence of an obligation to draw up an authentic instrument, from anti-money laundering rules?










(B)


If the Court concludes that the incompatibility outlined exists, does EU law, as described, with a view to protecting the effectiveness of Community interests, impose the radical penalty of invalidity with regard to:










(a)


assignments concluded under the framework in force prior to the approval of the decree implementing [Directive 2021/2167];










(b)


delegated powers to recover debts conferred upon entities not entered in a register supervised by the independent sectoral authority responsible for verifying compliance with anti-money laundering legislation?’






(1)  Directive (EU) 2021/2167 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021 on credit servicers and credit purchasers and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2014/17/EU (OJ 2021 L 438, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2840/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)