Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The aim of the paper is to provide a reconstructive reading of the case Bank M in the light of the core principles of the system of protection established by Directive 93/13, as well as, more generally, the regulation of restitutionary remedies derivable from national laws and the general principles of EU law. The analysis takes particularly into account the Italian civil lawyer’s point of view, as before the advent of Bank M , the Italian Supreme Court had already ruled on the same subject, establishing an unprecedented version of the condictio : an asymmetrical condictio , which has been defined, with a significant expression, as ‘protective condictio indebiti ’. Since both Courts allow the non professional party to pursue restitutory claims to which the professional party is not entitled as well, one might be led to believe that the same starting question was resolved in the same way in both cases, and therefore that, as a result of the case Bank M , a ‘protective condictio indebiti ’ such as that established by the Italian Supreme Court can be said to have been established (also) in European contract law. However, for the reasons to be explained below, it is believed that the CJEU did not intend to introduce a unilateral or asymmetrical claim for recovery of undue payment, but merely permitted the consumer to demand what, under domestic law, he or she would have obtained by exercising the general action of unjust enrichment. It will be seen how the general content of restitutory protection is articulated in the system established by the UCTD, in the light of the most relevant ECJ’s case-law on this subject, with the ultimate aim of verifying whether the ‘protective condictio indebiti ’ outlined by Italian case-law can enter fully into European contract law. 156
Francesca Corletto (Sat,) studied this question.