Since the introduction of Art. 2645 ter of the civil codethere has been a fiery debate, both academic and judicial, onthe feasibility of trust in Italy and, more generally, on theoperation of the voluntary assets destination, in its differentconfigurations, with chaotic effects on actual practice. Sucha noise could have been avoided by resorting to a more rigorousinterpretative technique. Yet, far from contributingto overcome these divergences, the Law No. 112/16 («Afterus») introduces contradictory rules that, in essence, dictateidentical discipline for three (only apparently?) differentsituations.
Il dibattito sull’ammissibilità del trust in Italiae, più in generale, sull’operatività della destinazione patrimonialedi fonte negoziale, in tutte le sue forme possibili, imperversain ambito dottrinale e giurisprudenziale, con riflessi caoticisulla prassi negoziale. Ciò avrebbe potuto essere evitato,ricorrendo ad una più rigorosa tecnica interpretativa. Tuttavia,ben lungi dal favorire il superamento di tali divergenze, lal. 112/16 elabora norme che, nella sostanza, si contraddicono,regolando in modo identico tre fattispecie (solo apparentemente?)diverse
La destinazione patrimoniale tra restrizioni interpretative e limitazioni legislative
GATT, Lucilla
2016-01-01
Abstract
Since the introduction of Art. 2645 ter of the civil codethere has been a fiery debate, both academic and judicial, onthe feasibility of trust in Italy and, more generally, on theoperation of the voluntary assets destination, in its differentconfigurations, with chaotic effects on actual practice. Sucha noise could have been avoided by resorting to a more rigorousinterpretative technique. Yet, far from contributingto overcome these divergences, the Law No. 112/16 («Afterus») introduces contradictory rules that, in essence, dictateidentical discipline for three (only apparently?) differentsituations.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
