ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TURIN
the First Civil Chamber
met in closed session in person:
Dr. Enzo Troiano President
Massimo Macchia Councillor
Dr. Adriano Patti Councillor rel.
gives the following
Judgement entered in Case No. 549 of the general role for business disputes in 2007 and placed in the resolution pursuant to art. 352 cpc promoted by:
VC, residing in Ghiffa (VB), on its own and as the legal representative of the farms of Puglia Srl in liquidation, based in Verbania, address for service in a way Peyron, at the Chambers of. Luigi Landini that represents and defends together with the lawyer. Albert's Beer Bar Verbania mandate on file;
APPELLANT
AGAINST:
CASTELLANZA CHEESE Spa, in the person's legal representative, based in Busto Arsizio (VA), elected domicile in Torino, via Sagliano 4,
at the Chambers of. Vincenzo Fanelli, who represents and defends together with the lawyer. Miriam Arabin hole Busto Arsizio mandate on file;
RESPONDENT
BANKRUPTCY farms of Puglia Srl in liquidation, in the person of the Trustee, with study in Verbania;
DEFENDANT DEFAULT
sought by the parties
For Appellant:
"Please MISUSE Ill.ma Court of Appeals before it, reiectis contrariis,
annul , unlawful or ineffective and therefore repeal the ruling declaring the bankruptcy against the Colonial Pugliese Sr. . l. VC and M. Bruno. No 4 / 07 of the Court of Verbania, dated February 15, 2007 and published February 24 2007, and since nothing issued in violation of the provisions of art. 1 l . F., in order to being subject to bankruptcy rules.
defendant to the costs, responsibilities and fees on appeal. "
For Castellanza Cheese spa:
" Please MISUSE Ill.ma Court of Appeals before it, reiectis contrariis,
reject action against the declared insolvent No 4 / 07 published 24 February 2007 published 24 February 2007, thus confirming it.
defendant to the costs, responsibilities and fees on appeal. "
OF THE PROCESS
By application filed April 5, 2007, Masseria Puglia Srl in liquidation, legal representative, said that it was declared bankrupt on petition (presented December 6, 2006) while the creditor Castellanza Cheese spa, legal representative, with a ruling by the Court of Verbania published February 24, 2007, appealed, according to the story (with the Legislative Decree. January 9, 2006, 5) Art. 18 l . fall. against the above sentence, before this Court in respect of the receivership and creditor while, asking, on the basis of two grounds of appeal, the reform, with the lifting of the bankruptcy said.
the resistance, with reasoned refutation of the various means of Castellana Cheese Spa, in its legal representative, contended that the rejection of the appeal and the opponent instead of the default Bankruptcy Appeals, after the report, today's audience, and discussion of the adviser in charge of the defenders of the parties made, the Court decided the cause, the conclusions set out in the headnote, transcribed, by reading the device at a public hearing (reserving the motivation within fifteen days).
GROUNDS
The first ground of appeal, Masseria Puglia Srl in liquidation complains, in its legal representative, the court misapplied the art. 1, second paragraph l. fall., seeing, even in the absence, on the basis of the note of the Guardia di Finanza of 22 December 2006 and the records on file, the size requirements set by the novel arrangement (the attainment of gross revenue, calculated on the basis of the last three years, for a total annual amount greater than € 200,000.00; investment holding over a capital value exceeding € 300,000.00), the occurrence of the subjective requirement of fallibility, in response to withholding continuing validity, even for the purposes identified area fallibility, art. 2083 cc, except in the integration of its requirements of small-scale entrepreneurship in the head today Appellant, in particular the form (corporation) and the object (wholesale food) of the business carried on: PROBLEMS: In fact, properly deny any remaining area of \u200b\u200boperation, for a qualitative assessment ( integrative function in-lieu), such as that expressed by art. 2083 cc, faced with a clear legislative choice of an appreciation of the size of, for bankruptcy, only quantity.
Castellana Cheese Spa pleads the invalidity of the plea, the proper argument of the court, the foundation declared bankruptcy, following a proper interpretation art. 2083 cc, as applied in the case (widely cited) consolidated the validity of the bankruptcy law prior to the reform.
The second ground of appeal, Masseria Puglia Srl in liquidation alleging misapplication of Article. 1, second paragraph l. fall. under the profile of amounts subject to consideration for the evaluation of the rule of capital at work (in particular, staff members) instrument used in business activity, view interpretive art. 2083 cc, the parameters of income over the whole period (and not just the last three years).
As regards the first ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article. 1, second paragraph l. fall. (As amended by Article. D. 1 lg. January 9, 2006, No 5 in force since July 16, 2006), for the considered application of Article. 2083 cc, the Court notes, by way of introduction, that it is not in dispute between the parties (and, incidentally, actually resulting in, for direct verification of this too judgmental of the information in the file), the absence of the above-mentioned subjective requirements, prescribed by the letters a), b) the provision in question.
This place in a matter of fact, it must be noted il novellato art. 1 l . fall., nel ribadire, al primo comma, la soggezione alle disposizioni sul fallimento e sul concordato preventivo (abrogata l’amministrazione controllata dall’art. 147 d. lg. 5/2006) degli imprenditori esercenti un’attività commerciale, con esclusione degli enti pubblici e de”i piccoli imprenditori”, abbia chiaramente indicato come “ai fini del primo comma, non sono piccoli imprenditori” coloro che esercitino un’attività commerciale, in forma individuale o collettiva, caratterizzata, anche in via alternativa, dai suddetti requisiti dimensionali.
Pur nella corretta rilevazione, da parte di attenta dottrina, del difetto Coordination of the words with the Articles. 2221 (that is subject to bankruptcy proceedings "entrepreneurs engaged in commercial activity ..., except for small entrepreneurs") and 2083 cc (those that are not only the farmers of the fund, the artisans and small traders, " those engaged in organized professional un''attività mainly with the work of themselves and family members), being subject to a bankruptcy in excess of the parameters set by the legislative news, even though the subjects covered in the training codicistica small entrepreneur, as well as formulation of misunderstanding dell’esenzione concorsuale (“non sono …”), pare a questa Corte che la volontà del legislatore al proposito sia sufficientemente chiara e come tale debba essere applicata dall’interprete.
Come da subito e perspicuamente osservato, non può, infatti, sfuggire la ben diversa nettezza di affermazione del legislatore del 2006 (“non sono” piccoli imprenditori), in sé autosufficiente e senza rimandi ad altre nozioni, rispetto al legislatore del 1942 (“sono considerati” piccoli imprenditori), che invece lasciava un diverso spazio, sul piano definitorio, seppure ai fini concorsuali, ad assimilazioni richiamanti una più generale nozione di piccolo imprenditore, appunto contenuta nell’art. 2083 c.c.
Ancora sul piano della chiarezza, neppure può essere sottaciuta l’inequivoca limitazione, all’esordio del secondo comma, dei “non piccoli imprenditori”, così come individuati alle lettere a), b) dello stesso comma, “ai fini del primo comma” e pertanto ai soli fini della soggezione alle procedure concorsuali (andandone esenti i piccoli):
ciò che peraltro non deve destare, ad avviso di questa Corte, particolari preoccupazioni di incoerenza rispetto ad una pretesa nozione unitaria nell’ordinamento (neppure concorsuale, per la ragione detta) di piccolo imprenditore, thus causing the end of the new finding, not a small notion of employer insolvency, but rather a legal presumption, however, no small or medium enterprise for bankruptcy or even small-business owner in an exception (so: Trib Florence 31 January 2007, in Fall ., 2007, 591 sm).
E 'has always been well known, in fact, the difficulty of a single definition of small business in our legal system or a small enterprise, which, according to the fragmented legislative framework "industry" exists, involves highly entrepreneurial in their distant from minimum production organisms (due the traditional wording of Article. 2083 cc) to more complex business models for organizational structure and size, in particular emerging as the criteria for the identification of small and medium-sized enterprises, in terms of size, employment and investment of DM 18 March 1997, updating the previous March 22 dm 1994 implementation of Decree 20 May 1993, No 142, provided for by national law, albeit for the purposes of the Community framework for access to facilities provided for those businesses indeed.
seems so at odds with the actual figure of reality continue to pursue an alleged qualitative model of small business (Its uniqueness, however, has never even been drawn, as attested by the troubled interpretative debate, regarding the uncertainty of definition of the concept contained in Art. 2083 cc, with the balance in emphasis on identifying the parameters of capital and labor, the distinction even to those purposes, the contractor individually and collectively, and the relationship with artisan company), once the legislature has expressed itself with (enough) clarity in the sense of an option quantity.
Such a choice, freed from always problematic (and often ambiguous) the findings of a qualitative nature, it appears, first, consistent with the guiding principle the enabling law to "simplify the rules by extending the applicability of those exempt institution" bankrupt (Article 1, sixth paragraph of Article. a, 1 l p.to . May 14, 2005, No. 80 ), which also responds to the specific reference to all forms of entrepreneurship, individual and collective, the obvious aim of overcoming any controversial interpretation as regards the inclusion or not of commercial companies in the group of the category of small entrepreneurs.
In order then to the extent of regulatory intervention, it seems doubtful even to redefine the understanding of the subjective the scope of the institution of bankruptcy, as well clarifies the relationship accompanying article. 1 of Decree 5 / 2006, which shows it as "the extension of exempt persons" and "was intended not merely to quantitative or qualitative" placing it beyond the concrete identification of criteria and parameters, in continuity with configuring the reform that address small business owner based on objectively measurable indicators, with criteria, in turn, based "value of the assets, the total revenue and number of employees and taking into account parameters-weighted gross domestic product of each region " (Article 4, first paragraph of Article. Well 5, first paragraph of Article. B Schema draft law approved by a majority of the ministerial committee set up by dm November 28, 2001) on the achievement in the three years prior to initiation the procedure, in the amount of revenues (as initially indicated in € 250,000), regularly updated (Article 2, Lett. and schedule of the bill of the ministerial committee set up by dm February 27, 2004), the extent of capital investment (initially set at € 100,000) over the past five years, regularly re-valued according to the indexes Istat (Article 1 of the draft Law No 5736, the Chamber of Deputies, XIV Legislature, cd. "maxi-amendment").
As we understand, all these parameters are the result of the adoption "as the sole criterion" of finding a small business owner, for the application of competition rules, to "the quantity" (and in particular said in the accompanying report to this "maxi-amendment") and in this furrow has arisen precisely the legislature in 2006.
seems inescapable then to the Court, according to the wording of the provision read with the intention of the legislature, as above critically examined, for the purpose of the identification of business entities alle procedure concorsuali, debba farsi esclusivo riferimento ai criteri dimensionali prescritti dal novellato art. 1, secondo comma l. fall., senza alcun residuo spazio applicativo per l’art. 2083 c.c. (in tale senso, tra le prime interpretazioni edite, pure: Trib. Catania 28 novembre 2006, decr., in Fall., 2007, 558; Trib. Mantova 1 febbraio 2007, ivi, 2007, 591).
Alla luce delle superiori argomentazioni, pare evidente che il Tribunale di Verbania abbia disatteso i suddetti canoni interpretativi, erroneamente ravvisando la vigenza dei criteri (nel verificato difetto di quelli dell’art. 1, secondo comma l. fall.) previsti dall’art. 2083 c.c. (non ricorrenti in capo alla Masseria Pugliese S.r.l. in liquidazione, anche tenuto conto della sua forma organizzativa e dell’oggetto della sua attività, per la preminenza in essa del capitale investito sul lavoro impiegato, con particolare riferimento all’entità dei ricavi conseguiti durante tutto il periodo di operatività), per tale via ermeneutica pervenendo alla sua dichiarazione di fallimento: sicchè essa, in accoglimento del mezzo esaminato (con assorbimento del secondo subordinato), deve essere revocata.
La novità della questione interpretativa costituisce, infine, giustificato motivo per la compensazione integrale tra le parti delle spese del presente grado.
P.Q.M.
La Corte d’Appello
V° l’art. 18 l . fall.,
in accoglimento dell’appello proposto da V. C., in proprio e in qualità di legale rappresentante della Masseria Pugliese S.r.l. in liquidazione, avverso la sentenza dichiarativa del fallimento della società anzidetta,
revoca
il fallimento dichiarato dal Tribunale di Verbania con sentenza n. 4 del 15 – 24 febbraio 2007;
dichiara
interamente compensate tra le parti le spese del presente grado di giudizio;
fissa
il termine di quindici giorni per il deposito della motivazione.
Così deciso in Torino nella camera di consiglio del 15 giugno 2007
Il Presidente
Il Consigliere Est. (Dott. Enzo Troiano)
(Dott. Adriano Patti)
Pubblicata il 22 giugno 2007
