The PhD Thesis is based on the regulation concerning the evaluation of consumers’ credit worthiness, according to the article 8 Directive 2008/48/EC on “credit agreements for consumers” and article 14 Directive 2014/17/UE on “credit agreements relating to residential property” (Mortgage Credit Directive, MCD). Each of these directives contain a special regulation of the “credit worthiness”, that arouses the problem relating with the identification of the purpose of this evaluation and with the social and juridical protected interest. In fact, on the one end, this discipline could be understood as a regulation aimed at ensuring only the correct execution of bank activity, in order to avoid that the financial institutions grant sum of money (even if of limited amount) to subjects that, through an ex ante evaluation, could have well been recognized as potentially insolvent. On the other hand, however, in the current social and economical context, we cannot exclude that the European Union Institutions first, and the national legislators of European Union Member States then, making reference to the credit negotiation, intend to offer to the weaker party of the contractual relation (i.e.: the consumer) a level of protection directed to avoid the lending, from bank intermediaries, when the loan is substantially unbearable for the consumer himself and is based on an incorrect evaluation of the credit worthiness (which could also lead, in the long run, to the so-called Overindebtedness of the consumer). Central, then, is the recognition of the right perspective of the protected interest because different would be the practical implications resulting from the non-fulfilment of the duty (in any case burdening the financier) to proceed to the evaluation of credit worthiness of the potential debtor. This aspect is not completely regulated by the two European directives, allowing each Member State to outline different systems of sanctions according to the interest considered preeminent: if it is the banks’ interest to be privileged, administrative sanctions would be preferred; on the contrary, if it is the consumers’ interest to be protected, it could allow the creation of private-law sanctions directed to avoid situations of so-called Over-indebtedness of themselves.

Nel quadro dell’attuale crisi finanziaria e del sempre più penetrante fenomeno del c.d. “sovraindebitamento delle famiglie”, le istituzioni europee hanno ritenuto opportuno intervenire attraverso l’emanazione di due direttive aventi entrambe lo scopo di creare un mercato interno del credito al consumo più trasparente, efficiente e competitivo, tale da garantire a tutti i cittadini europei un livello di tutela elevato ed uniforme. A tal riguardo, il lavoro di ricerca si propone di indagare se la verifica del merito creditizio del consumatore, quale obbligo gravante in capo ai finanziatori, possa rappresentare il nucleo normativo a partire dal quale sviluppare strumenti di tutela rispetto a forme di credito irresponsabile finalizzati a proteggere il consumatore dal rischio di una potenziale insolvenza del contratto di credito, ovvero se tale istituto sia primariamente volto a garantire il corretto svolgimento dell’attività bancaria. Si analizzeranno dunque le diverse soluzioni prospettate dai legislatori nazionali dei singoli Stati membri, ponendo particolare attenzione alla tipologia di sanzioni in concreto previste in caso di violazione del precetto europeo e si tenterà altresì l’individuazione di regole volte a realizzare un adeguato bilanciamento fra le esigenze di trasparenza ed efficienza del mercato e la tutela dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali della persona nell’ottica della realizzazione di un sistema efficiente ed affidabile per tutti i soggetti coinvolti nell’operazione finanziaria.

Contratti di finanziamento e valutazione del merito creditizio del cliente-consumatore nel diritto dell'Unione europea. Le direttive 2008/48/CE e 2014/17/UE e la loro attuazione negli Stati membri.

BELLETTATO, Sara
2018

Abstract

The PhD Thesis is based on the regulation concerning the evaluation of consumers’ credit worthiness, according to the article 8 Directive 2008/48/EC on “credit agreements for consumers” and article 14 Directive 2014/17/UE on “credit agreements relating to residential property” (Mortgage Credit Directive, MCD). Each of these directives contain a special regulation of the “credit worthiness”, that arouses the problem relating with the identification of the purpose of this evaluation and with the social and juridical protected interest. In fact, on the one end, this discipline could be understood as a regulation aimed at ensuring only the correct execution of bank activity, in order to avoid that the financial institutions grant sum of money (even if of limited amount) to subjects that, through an ex ante evaluation, could have well been recognized as potentially insolvent. On the other hand, however, in the current social and economical context, we cannot exclude that the European Union Institutions first, and the national legislators of European Union Member States then, making reference to the credit negotiation, intend to offer to the weaker party of the contractual relation (i.e.: the consumer) a level of protection directed to avoid the lending, from bank intermediaries, when the loan is substantially unbearable for the consumer himself and is based on an incorrect evaluation of the credit worthiness (which could also lead, in the long run, to the so-called Overindebtedness of the consumer). Central, then, is the recognition of the right perspective of the protected interest because different would be the practical implications resulting from the non-fulfilment of the duty (in any case burdening the financier) to proceed to the evaluation of credit worthiness of the potential debtor. This aspect is not completely regulated by the two European directives, allowing each Member State to outline different systems of sanctions according to the interest considered preeminent: if it is the banks’ interest to be privileged, administrative sanctions would be preferred; on the contrary, if it is the consumers’ interest to be protected, it could allow the creation of private-law sanctions directed to avoid situations of so-called Over-indebtedness of themselves.
DE CRISTOFARO, Giovanni
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
TESI DOTTORATO.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Tesi dottorato
Tipologia: Tesi di dottorato
Dimensione 2.35 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.35 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2488141
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact