Cassazione Civile - Ordinanza n. 09019/2026

Key Facts

Issues

• The validity of the 180-day deadline for imposing sanctions under art. 195 comma 1 TUF and whether the authority exceeded a reasonable timeframe for the proceeding.
• The extent of non-delegated administrators' responsibilities in supervising strategic decisions and ensuring compliance under TUF and Bank of Italy regulations.
• The legitimacy of the authority's decision not to provide full document access to the accused, arguing it did not impact the defense due to irrelevance.
• Alleged procedural gaps in the sanctioning process (e.g., impartiality, separation of functions) and their compliance with legal standards.
• Whether the sanction for the second violation was legally justified as a culpable act rather than requiring intentional wrongdoing under TUF art. 191 comma 2.
• The legitimacy of the court's refusal to grant additional time for document submission and its impact on the accused's defense under CEDU and EU Charter provisions.
• Whether the sanction's punitive measure aligned with the principle of personalization under TUF, despite the absence of a new TUF art. 194-bis provision.
• Whether the omitted details in the prospectus (e.g., share price determination, financing practices) were essential for investors' informed decisions under TUF art. 94 comma 2.
• The correctness of liquidating professional fees for the Consob's legal representation in the cassation proceeding under art. 91 c.p.c.
• Other procedural and substantive claims raised in the 18-motivo ricorso, including alleged violations of EU law and domestic procedural rules.
• The legality of using a single valuation method (Income approach) for share pricing instead of the required combination of three methods (Income, Market, Asset/Cost approaches).
• The obligation to disclose the 'capitale finanziato' and related financing activities in prospectuses, despite the administrator's non-delegated role.
• The justification for the sanction based on the 2014 prospectuses and the disapplication of combined valuation models.
• The existence of the material element of the offense in the first and third violations, particularly the lack of legal basis for the sanction.
• The applicability of new legislative provisions (d.lgs. n. 72 del 2015) to violations committed before their entry into force, particularly regarding retroactivity.
• The application of the presumption of innocence in administrative sanctions and the burden of proof distribution under art. 3 legge n. 689 del 1981 and CEDU art. 6.
• The necessity of referring questions to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the compatibility of TUF sanctions with EU law and fundamental rights.
• The duty of non-delegated administrators to be informed about the 'capitale finanziato' phenomenon and its implications for governance.

Holdings

• The third motive is partially inadmissible and unfounded regarding the 180-day deadline.
• The court affirms previous decisions on the same Consob delibera.
• The twelfth motive is unfounded regarding non-executive administrator responsibilities.
• The eighth, ninth, and tenth motives are partially inadmissible and unfounded regarding omitted information.
• The first motive is unfounded regarding jurisdiction and constitutional issues.
• The nineteenth request for a preliminary reference is unfounded.
• The sixth motive is partially inadmissible and unfounded regarding document access.
• The seventh motive is unfounded regarding the right to be heard.
• The eighteenth motive is unfounded regarding legal cost calculations.
• The fourth motive is unfounded regarding art. 19 comma 3's application.
• The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth motives are partially inadmissible and unfounded regarding negligence and presumption of innocence.
• The fifth motive is unfounded regarding the sanction's penal nature.
• The eleventh motive is unfounded regarding art. 191 comma 2's strict liability.

Remedies

• Ai sensi dell'art. 13, comma 1-quater, del d.P.R. n. 115/2002, dichiara che sussistono i presupposti processuali per il versamento, da parte del ricorrente, di un ulteriore importo a titolo di contributo unificato pari a quello previsto per il ricorso a norma del comma 1-bis del citato art. 13, se dovuto.
• La Corte rigetta il ricorso e condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese del giudizio di cassazione, che liquida in euro 5.000,00, a titolo di compenso, più euro 200,00, per esborsi, oltre alle spese generali e agli accessori di legge.

Legal Principles

• The ruling referenced the 'tempus regit actum' principle, affirming that newer favorable laws do not retroactively apply to violations occurring before their enactment, unless explicitly stated.
• The court applied the principle of presumption of guilt (presunzione di colpa) under art. 3 of law 689/1981, requiring the defendant to prove innocence rather than the authority proving guilt in administrative sanctions cases.
• The court dismissed the defense of good faith (buona fede), stating it does not apply to administrative sanctions where the defendant must prove they acted without fault, regardless of subjective intent.
• The decision emphasized that administrators (even non-delegated) have a fiduciary duty to act informed about the bank's operations, based on art. 2381 c.c., to ensure effective corporate governance and risk management.

Precedent Name

• Cass. n. 22848 del 2015, Cass. n. 19556 del 2020
• Cass. n. 1740 del 20/01/2022, Rv. 664171 - 01
• Cass. nn. 1740/2022, 8855/2017, 1621/2018, 4/2019, 5/2019 e 31632/2019
• Cass. n. 8060/2007
• Cass. nn. 5298 e 5299 del 2025
• Cass., S.U., 08/07/2016, n. 14043
• Cass. n. 24081/2019
• Cass. n. 24374/2024, 23825/2023, 16274/2022, 1740/2022

Cited Statute

• Codice Civile (Civil Code)
• Regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013
• Decreto legislativo n. 115 del 2002
• Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo (CEDU)
• Legge n. 689 del 1981
• Decreto legislativo n. 150 del 2011
• Decreto legislativo n. 72 del 2015
• Decreto legislativo n. 385 del 1993 (TUB)
• Carta Europea dei Diritti Fondamentali (European Charter of Fundamental Rights)
• Testo Unico Finanziario (TUF)
• Decreto legislativo n. 58 del 1998

Judge Name

• Orilia Lorenzo
• Guida Riccardo

Passage Text

• Il regolamento fornisce, quindi, unicamente le 'informazioni minime', di carattere non esaustivo, che devono corredare i prospetti, laddove l'art. 94 TUF contiene una previsione di carattere decisamente elastico e residuale, secondo cui il prospetto deve contenere 'tutte le informazioni che [...] sono necessarie affinché gli investitori possano pervenire ad un fondato giudizio sulla situazione patrimoniale e finanziaria, sui risultati economici e sulle prospettive dell'emittente [...] nonché sui prodotti finanziari e sui relativi diritti'
• la sanzione inflitta al ricorrente, e ad altri ventuno esponenti della banca, riguardava la violazione dell'art. 94 comma 2 TUF per la mancata rappresentazione, nei prospetti di offerta delle azioni, di informazioni necessarie agli investitori concernenti la determinazione del prezzo delle azioni, la concessione di finanziamenti strumentali alla sottoscrizione e all'acquisto delle azioni, la compravendita delle azioni BPVi;
• la sentenza ha correttamente rilevato che si è in presenza di un illecito amministrativo per il quale vale il principio generale, sancito dall'art. 3 della legge n. 689 del 1981, secondo cui la responsabilità della violazione amministrativa [...] grava sull'autore della medesima, tanto in caso di condotta dolosa che in caso di condotta colposa;