No more barriers between those creditors who want to verify the assets owned by debtor and creditor’s current accounts.  Naples, Mantova and Pavia are those courts that consider possible a direct access to Public Administration’s databases by creditor who may research debtor’s assets via internet and seize them.

Which regulation set outs that important step? It started from the civil law reform approved last year (legislative decree no. 132 of 12th September 2014 and converted into law no. 162 of 10th November 2014). With prior authorisation of the President of the Court, the regulation allows creditor to access the Public Administration’s databases to verify which debtor’s assets can be seized.  That verification is obviously possible through a judicial officer. However, this is great news for those creditors who may research assets and subject them to enforcement proceedings.  The inherent purpose of that regulation is to facilitate debt recovery procedures and considerably save time and money.

The only doubt concerning that regulation enforceability relates to a vacuum remitting its practical implementation to one or more ministerial decrees which have never been issued.  That is the reason why some Courts are assessing its feasibility while waiting for such decrees. It seems that the judgements laid down in Mantova, Pavia and Naples courts leave no doubt:  creditors may apply directly to Public Administration bodies managing specific databases such as Social Security Institution (INPS), Vehicle Register and Tax Agency, instead of the judicial officer inquiry) which may provide information to creditor about debtors’ assets to identify those which can be seized.  The judicial obstacle seemed to be overtaken by courts which while waiting for relevant implementing decrees aiming at setting privacy rules and identifying technological tools that judicial officers may use, those bodies may provide the report of debtor’s assets allowing creditor to act immediately.

Therefore, those who can proceed to forced execution because holders of an enforceable order such as a judgement, injunction, cheque, bill, loan agreement, etc. after paying relevant fee, (contributo unificato) may require to the judicial officer to access tax databases via internet in order to identify debtor’s goods or assets.

Not only. If the judicial officer is not able to directly access databases due to lack of appropriate IT tools, creditor may be authorized by the President of the Court to receive data directly by those bodies managing databases, without waiting for implementing decrees.

In fact, no privacy infringement has been detected because the judicial officer is the authorized person who directly accesses databases via internet.  Indeed, the authorization does not consider a direct access to databases by creditor who may only require and obtain debtor information by those bodies managing databases. The relevant queries are not performed by creditor.  No privacy infringement because administration bodies are those who manage relevant requests and not creditor directly by pc.

Such reform vacuum has not affected the substance of the rule which allows creditor to require a clear picture of the debtor’s assets that may be seized before starting debt recovery proceeding.  Hard times for those debtors who are subjected to inspection with electronic means also with no prior foreclosure with negative result and creditors may have a significant saving of time and money.

Author: Erica Venditti
Source: Edited by Credit Village