Patto di famiglia e tutela individuale del legittimario

Law 55/2006 (entitled “Amendments to the Civil Code dealing with “Patto di Famiglia”), which came into force on March 16th 2006, amended the Italian Civil Code by creating the legal institute of “patto di famiglia”, which aims at allowing the transfer of enterprise or shareholdings during the life of the enterpreurner and entails an exception to inheritance rules. Many interpretative problems arise from the unclear phrasing of the new regulation; among these the most relevant one - both in theory and in practice - relates to the identification of the necessary parties of the “patto di famiglia”, whose defect of consent leads to voidness of the contract. In particular, it is not certain whether the spouse and the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate to whom the enterprise and/or the shares are not assigned must participate to the contract. Namely, since the first paragraph of article 768-quater CC, provides that “the spouse and any person who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate existing at the time of the conclusion of the agreement must participate to the agreement”, some authors argue that the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate should give their consent to the “patto di famiglia”, while, according to others, those have just to be informed of its conclusion. Three theories were formulated with regard to articles 768 bis, 768 quater, paragraph 1 and 768 paragraph 1 CC. According to both first and second theory, the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate must be a party to the “patto di famiglia”, however, while according to the former their participation is not essential, for the latter the lack of the participation of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate existing at the time of the conclusion of the agreement makes the contract void. A third point of view assumes the ‘patto di famiglia’ as a special contract for the benefit of third parties: the participation to the contract of any person who is not assignee of the enterprise and/or the shares and would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate is considered to be required by art. 768 quater CC for a different purpose than the participation of the disposing ascendant and assignee descendant (art. 768 bis). Namely, whilst the presence of the latters is necessary for the validity of the contract, the agreement of the persons who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate and are not assignees is required in order to make the agreement enforceable towards them and to convert the share of the testator’s estate reserved by law for certain heirs into the right to receive its monetary value, which has to be calculated considering the enterprise and/or the shareholdings’ value. This paper analyses the matter above and the role of the persons who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s. The research leads to the conclusion that the participation of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate non-assegnees is required for the validity of the contract. The regulation of “patto di famiglia” appears to be inspired by the criterion of the compulsory involvement at law of all persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate existing at a given time, because of the relevancy of the their interests at stake: far from being considered mere parties of the contract, they must be regarded as essential parties instead, whose consent is necessary for the validity of the “patto di famiglia” (Art. 1418, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code). Therefore, if one of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate cannot or does not want to participate to the agreement, it will not be possibile to conclude the “patto di famiglia” ; instead, the enterprises’s and/or the enterprises shareholdings’ transfer should be guaranteed by using different kinds of contractual agreements. This conclusion also seems to be confirmed by the unsuccessful attempts made to amend the Italian “patto di famiglia” regulation over 2011 and 2012. Namely, all the legislative initiatives providing the amendment of Art. 768, letter d) CC, concerning the “participation” to the ‘patto di famiglia’, layed out the possibility for the agreement to be drawn up also without the presence of all the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate. Such proposals seem to confirm the fact that the regulation now in force subordinates the validity of the “patto di famiglia” to the consent of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased’s estate

Concorso improprio di responsabilità: l’avant-projet français de réforme du droit des obligations

L’avant-projet Catala, risalente al 2005 e dedicato alla riforma del diritto delle obbligazioni in Francia, codifica il tradizionale principio, ignorato dalla maggior parte dei diritti stranieri, del divieto di cumulo fra responsabilita`contrattuale ed extracontrattuale. Al contempo, lo stesso avant-projet introduce con l’art. 1342 una singolare eccezione a favore dei terzi, vittime dell’inadempimento contrattuale, consentendo ad essi di far valere entrambe le responsabilita`. Questo lavoro individua contenuti e limiti della soluzione preferita dal progetto e la colloca nel contesto dottrinale e giurisprudenziale che l’ha preceduta. Da ultimo, questo contributo ne saggia la compatibilita` con i principi dell’ordinamento italiano

Patto di famiglia e parti necessarieLa partecipazione dei legittimari fra donation-partage e modello italiano

La legge 14 febbraio 2006, n. 55, dedicata a \u201cModifiche al codice civile in materia di patto di famiglia\u201d ed entrata in vigore il 16 marzo 2006, ha inserito nel codice civile italiano l\u2019istituto del patto di famiglia, che consente la trasmissione di un\u2019azienda o di partecipazioni societarie quando l\u2019imprenditore o colui che detiene tali partecipazioni \ue8 ancora in vita, incidendo sui diritti dei futuri legittimari. La nuova normativa pone rilevanti problemi ermeneutici in ragione del non chiaro dettato legislativo: tra questi assume notevole importanza sul piano teorico e su quello applicativo il problema relativo all\u2019individuazione di quali siano le parti essenziali, a pena di nullit\ue0, del patto di famiglia; in particolare, se siano tali il coniuge e i legittimari non assegnatari dell\u2019azienda e/o delle quote societarie. Il problema deriva, in particolare, dal primo comma dell\u2019art. 768-quater c.c., il quale recita: \u201cAl contratto devono partecipare anche il coniuge e tutti coloro che sarebbero legittimari ove in quel momento si aprisse la successione nel patrimonio dell\u2019imprenditore\u201d. Dall\u2019interpretazione della locuzione \u201cdevono partecipare\u201d discendono le differenti letture che si sono fornite al tema: se i legittimari siano parti del contratto o se debbano solamente intervenire alla stipulazione del medesimo. L\u2019ambiguo testo delle norme di cui agli artt. 768 bis, 768 quater, 1\uba comma, e 768 sexies, 1\uba comma, c.c., ha invero suscitato tre diverse ricostruzioni interpretative. Secondo un primo filone i legittimari devono intervenire alla stipulazione del patto di famiglia, ma la partecipazione non \ue8 requisito strutturale del contratto stesso, mentre per un secondo filone la mancata partecipazione da parte dei legittimari esistenti al momento della stipula del patto di cui all\u2019art. 768 bis e ss. rende lo stesso invalido. Le due contrapposte ricostruzioni, una in termini di necessaria partecipazione di tutti i legittimari e l\u2019altra nel senso della sufficiente bilateralit\ue0 del contratto, non esauriscono il quadro delle ipotesi interpretative avanzate da coloro che hanno indagato la funzione e la struttura del patto di famiglia. Si \ue8 sostenuto, altres\uec, che il nuovo istituto costituisce un\u2019applicazione dello schema del contratto a favore di terzi. Secondo quest\u2019ultima ricostruzione del patto di famiglia, il legislatore, pur richiedendo nell\u2019art. 768 quater, cod. civ., la partecipazione al contratto di tutti coloro che sarebbero legittimari ove in quel momento si aprisse la successione del disponente, in realt\ue0 assegna ai legittimari non assegnatari un ruolo diverso rispetto a quello rivestito dai soggetti richiamati dall\u2019art. 768 bis, cod. civ: ascendente disponente e discendente assegnatario. La sola presenza di quest\u2019ultimi, infatti, sarebbe necessaria al fine di rendere valido il contratto, mentre l\u2019accordo prestato dai legittimari non assegnatari sarebbe essenziale al fine di rendere il patto efficace nei loro confronti, restando finalizzato a consolidare definitivamente l\u2019acquisto del diritto nascente dal patto e convertendo la legittima nel diritto di credito al valore della quota di riserva, quantificato in relazione al valore patrimoniale dell\u2019azienda e/o delle partecipazioni. La tesi di dottorato ha indagato e tentato di risolvere il problema relativo all\u2019individuazione di quali siano le parti essenziali del contratto e se tra esse rientrino anche il coniuge e tutti coloro che sarebbero legittimari se, al momento della stipula del patto, si aprisse la successione nel patrimonio dell\u2019imprenditore. Il tema \ue8 stato affrontato movendo dal sistema successorio francese e, in quell\u2019ambito, dall\u2019istituto della donation-partage, di cui agli artt. 1076 e ss. Code civil, individuando il ruolo attribuito dal legislatore francese - nelle diverse modifiche che hanno interessato l\u2019istituto dal 1804 ad oggi - ai legittimari all\u2019interno della figura della donation partage. L\u2019indagine effettuata ha portato a concludere che la partecipazione dei legittimari non assegnatari sia elemento integrante nella struttura dell\u2019accordo. La disciplina del patto di famiglia appare, infatti, ispirata al criterio del coinvolgimento necessario ed obbligatorio di tutti i legittimari esistenti in un dato momento temporale. La rilevanza degli interessi in gioco dei legittimari esige che gli stessi prendano parte attiva alla stipulazione e alla valutazione dei beni oggetto del contratto: i soggetti in questione sono stati considerati non quali meri partecipanti, bens\uec quali vere e proprie parti essenziali, necessarie al fine della predisposizione del regolamento negoziale del patto di famiglia, a pena di nullit\ue0 originaria dello stesso (ex art. 1418, comma primo, cod. civ.). Di conseguenza, se uno dei legittimari non assegnatari non possa o non voglia intervenire all\u2019atto, non potr\ue0 procedersi alla conclusione del patto di famiglia e si dovr\ue0, semmai, ricorrere all\u2019utilizzo di altro strumento negoziale per assicurare la trasmissione dell\u2019azienda e/o delle partecipazioni societarie. Questa conclusione pare trovare conferma anche nei tentativi, non andati a buon fine, succedutesi nel corso dell\u2019anno 2011, per la modifica della disciplina del patto di famiglia. Tutte le iniziate legislative prevedevano, infatti, la modifica dell\u2019art. 768 quater cod. civ. dedicato alla \u201cPartecipazione\u201d, con la possibilit\ue0 che l\u2019atto sia redatto anche senza la presenza di tutti i legittimari. Tale intervento pare, quindi, confermare che, secondo la disciplina ancora ad oggi in vigore, la stipulazione del patto sia vietata qualora non vi partecipino tutti i legittimari esistenti al momento in cui viene stipulato il patto di famiglia.Law 55/2006 (entitled \u201cAmendments to the Civil Code dealing with \u201cPatto di Famiglia\u201d), which came into force on March 16th 2006, amended the Italian Civil Code by creating the legal institute of \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d, which aim is to allow the transfer of enterprise or shareholdings during the life of the enterpreurner and entails an exception to inheritance rules. Many interpretative problems arise from the unclear phrasing of the new regulation; among these the most relevant one - both in theory and in practice - relates to the identification of the necessary parties of the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d, whose defect of consent leads to voidness of the contract. In particular, it is not certain whether the spouse and the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate to whom the enterprise and/or the shares are not assigned must participate to the contract. Namely, since the first paragraph of article 768-quater CC, provides that \u201cthe spouse and any person who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate existing at the time of the conclusion of the agreement must participate to the agreement\u201d, some authors argue that the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate should give their consent to the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d, while, according to others, those have just to attend its conclusion. Three theories were formulated with regard to articles 768 bis, 768 quater, paragraph 1 and 768 paragraph 1 CC. According to both first and second theory, the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate must be a party to the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d, however, while according to the former their participation is not essential, for the latter the lack of the participation of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate existing at the time of the conclusion of the agreement makes the contract void. A third point of view assumes the \u2018patto di famiglia\u2019 as a special contract for the benefit of third parties: the participation to the contract of any person who is not assignee of the enterprise and/or the shares and would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate is considered to be required by art. 768 quater CC for a different purpose than the participation of the disposing ascendant and assignee descendant (art. 768 bis). Namely, whilst the presence of the latters is necessary for the validity of the contract, the agreement of the persons who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate and are not assignees is required in order to make the agreement enforceable towards them and to convert the share of the testator\u2019s estate reserved by law for certain heirs into the right to receive its monetary value, which has to be calculated considering the enterprise and/or the shareholdings\u2019 value. The doctoral thesis analyses the matter above also with reference to the French succession system, paying particular attention to the donation partage, provided by Art. 1076 and following of the Code civil, and to the role the persons who would be entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate have in relation to such legal institute under French law since its first enacting in 1804. The research leads to the conclusion that the participation of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate non-assegnees is required for the validity of the contract. The regulation of \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d appears to be inspired by the criterion of the compulsory involvement at law of all persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate existing at a given time, because of the relevancy of the their interests at stake: far from being considered mere parties of the contract, they must be regarded as essential parties instead, whose consent is necessary for the validity of the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d (Art. 1418, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code). Therefore, if one of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate cannot or does not want to participate to the agreement, it will not be possibile to conclude the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d ; instead, the enterprises\u2019s and/or the enterprises shareholdings\u2019 transfer should be guaranteed by using different kinds of contractual agreements. This conclusion also seems to be confirmed by the unsuccessful attempts made to amend the Italian \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d regulation over 2011. Namely, all the legislative initiatives providing the amendment of Art. 768, letter d) CC, concerning the \u201cparticipation\u201d to the \u2018patto di famiglia\u2019, layed out the possibility for the agreement to be drawn up also without the presence of all the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate. Such proposals seem to confirm the fact that the regulation now in force subordinates the validity of the \u201cpatto di famiglia\u201d to the consent of the persons entitled by law to a share of the deceased\u2019s estate

Part III. Explanations - Italian

Accordo fra la Repubblica Federale Tedesca e la Repubblica Francese sul regime dei beni opzionale della partecipazione agli increment

Therapeutic options for CTLA-4 insufficiency.

BACKGROUND Heterozygous germline mutations in cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA4) impair the immunomodulatory function of regulatory T cells. Affected individuals are prone to life-threatening autoimmune and lymphoproliferative complications. A number of therapeutic options are currently being used with variable effectiveness. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to characterize the responsiveness of patients with CTLA-4 insufficiency to specific therapies and provide recommendations for the diagnostic workup and therapy at an organ-specific level. METHODS Clinical features, laboratory findings, and response to treatment were reviewed retrospectively in an international cohort of 173 carriers of CTLA4 mutation. Patients were followed between 2014 and 2020 for a total of 2624 months from diagnosis. Clinical manifestations were grouped on the basis of organ-specific involvement. Medication use and response were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS Among the 173 CTLA4 mutation carriers, 123 (71%) had been treated for immune complications. Abatacept, rituximab, sirolimus, and corticosteroids ameliorated disease severity, especially in cases of cytopenias and lymphocytic organ infiltration of the gut, lungs, and central nervous system. Immunoglobulin replacement was effective in prevention of infection. Only 4 of 16 patients (25%) with cytopenia who underwent splenectomy had a sustained clinical response. Cure was achieved with stem cell transplantation in 13 of 18 patients (72%). As a result of the aforementioned methods, organ-specific treatment pathways were developed. CONCLUSION Systemic immunosuppressants and abatacept may provide partial control but require ongoing administration. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation offers a possible cure for patients with CTLA-4 insufficiency

Therapeutic options for CTLA-4 insufficiency

BACKGROUND: Heterozygous germline mutations in cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA4) impair the immunomodulatory function of regulatory T cells. Affected individuals are prone to life-threatening autoimmune and lymphoproliferative complications. A number of therapeutic options are currently being used with variable effectiveness.OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the responsiveness of patients with CTLA-4 insufficiency to specific therapies and provide recommendations for the diagnostic workup and therapy at an organ-specific level.METHODS: Clinical features, laboratory findings, and response to treatment were reviewed retrospectively in an international cohort of 173 carriers of CTLA4 mutation. Patients were followed between 2014 and 2020 for a total of 2624 months from diagnosis. Clinical manifestations were grouped on the basis of organ-specific involvement. Medication use and response were recorded and evaluated.RESULTS: Among the 173 CTLA4 mutation carriers, 123 (71%) had been treated for immune complications. Abatacept, rituximab, sirolimus, and corticosteroids ameliorated disease severity, especially in cases of cytopenias and lymphocytic organ infiltration of the gut, lungs, and central nervous system. Immunoglobulin replacement was effective in prevention of infection. Only 4 of 16 patients (25%) with cytopenia who underwent splenectomy had a sustained clinical response. Cure was achieved with stem cell transplantation in 13 of 18 patients (72%). As a result of the aforementioned methods, organ-specific treatment pathways were developed.CONCLUSION: Systemic immunosuppressants and abatacept may provide partial control but require ongoing administration. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation offers a possible cure for patients with CTLA-4 insufficiency.</p