Studio Legale Pavan Website

The Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 8943 of 14 May 2020, established that in terms of warning to fulfill, a term shorter than fifteen days is only based on the conditions set out in art. 1454, paragraph 2, c. c.; consequently, in the presence of the assignment of the shorter term, the following are irrelevant: the previous reminders addressed to the debtor for the fulfillment, as this circumstance does not concern the nature of the contract, but an omissive behavior of the debtor; failure by the debtor to contest the deadline, provided that, on the basis of an assessment referred to the trial judge, such failure to contest does not take on meaning for the purpose of tacitly concluding the agreement in derogation; failure by the debtor to indicate the different term, deemed appropriate, which presupposes a charge not contemplated by the law; the continuation of the debtor's default beyond the assigned term, since the illegitimately ordered notice for a period of less than fifteen days is in itself unsuitable for the production of extinctive effects with regard to the relationship established between the parties.