The previous considerations highlight that the Bank of Italy has assumed a peculiar role in the whole management of the Financial and Banking Ombudsman system in ADR. Not by chance, in the judgement of the doctrine formulated when it was originally created, the risk of a “functionalisation” of the activity performed by the Banking and Financial Ombudsman (ABF) by the Bank of Italy for the purposes of banking surveillance emerged. 27
Also, in the light of the modifications introduced on the whole on the subject (one type with regard to the Regulations of the Bank of Italy coming into effect in 2012), the gap between the workability of the Banking and Financial Ombudsman and its role of surveillance is nowadays much more marked.
We should consider the opinion of the doctrine recalled above in the period immediately previous to the issue of Italian Legislative Decree No. 141 of 2011, when it was confirmed also in Art. 5 of the Consolidated Law on Banking that direct protection of the customer is not included in the aims of the activity of surveillance. Now, the insertion into Art. 127 of the Consolidated Law on Banking (by means of Decree No. 141) of openness in the contractual conditions and good practice in the relationships with the customers, amongst the aims which the Bank of Italy must pursue, allows the use of infor- mation regarding the outcomes of the cases before the Banking and Financial Ombudsman by the supervisory body to be evaluated in positive terms. This information is not only in the public domain
but also, highlighting any anomalies in the conduct of the interme- diaries, allows rapid corrective intervention, reducing the legal and reputational risks for them – risks which certainly do harm to those responsible (and hence to the stability of the system).
It is evident how the interpretational orientation of the role of the Banking and Financial Ombudsman now points to a new way of acting in the public interest. The decisions of this body are part of a “warning system for surveillance”, for which the Bank of Italy is justified in using them in to verify the behaviour of financial inter- mediaries. Conversely, the intermediaries, simply by acting in line with the positioning of the Banking and Financial Ombudsman, will be able to avoid malpractice in their affairs.
In conclusion, it should be underlined that recourse to the infor- mation coming from the Banking and Financial Ombudsman brings with it a decisive contribution in the quest for healthy and prudent banking management.
Thus, the difficulties put forward by the doctrine concerning the relationship between the Bank of Italy and the Arbitrator cannot interfere with our appreciation of the contribution made by the Banking and Financial Ombudsman (ABF) to the surveillance body, due to the functional relationship existing between them – a relation- ship indicative of a modern way of carrying out banking supervision in line with the latest tendencies of doctrine. 28
We can gather, at a general level, the diverse, enlarged evalua- tion nowadays attributable to financial supervision, which must be analyzed with consideration of its various perspectives, as true not only in reference to the exercise of powers of regulation and inter- vention (through solid guidelines) regarding those belonging to the sector, but also having the operational forms of other bodies avail- able (connected to the surveillance authority) in contributing toward safeguarding the legal and reputational risks, benefiting the stability of the entire financial system as a whole.
Notes
1. M. Pellegrini, Le controversie in materia bancaria e finanziaria (Cedam:
Padova), 2007, passim , specifically Chapters 5 and 6.
2 . For a comparative analysis of existing ADR systems in major European countries (including the US model), see G. Boccuzzi, (ed.), Isistemi alterna- tivi di risoluzione delle controversie nel settore bancario e finanziario: un’analisi
comparata, 2010, Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale della Banca d’Italia, Roma, no. 68. Regarding the US model (after the Dodd-Frank Reform) and the European model (Directive 2008/52/EC), 2011, A. Antonucci, The Mandatoryy ADR in the Financial Services, 2011, Riv.
Trim. Dir. Econ., p. 4.
3 . Going back to J. Bentham, Justice and Codification, Petitions (London), 1829, p. 75, the statement: “Delay (need it be said) is denial, while it lasts”.
4 . P. Rescigno, Sulla compatibilità tra il modello processuale della “class action”
ed i principi fondamentali dell’ordinamento giuridico italiano, in Giur. it .,t 2000, p. 2224 ss.; see also Bauman, (2001), Dentro laglobalizzazione. Le conseguenze sulle persone , Bari.
5 . G. Alpa, “ADR and Mediation: Experience from Italy”, in European Business Law Review , Vol. 19, 2008, p. 5.w
6 . E. Katsh and J. Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution, Resolving Disputes in Cyberspace , (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 2001.
7 . M. Pellegrini, Sistemi di ADR in ambito bancario e finanziario e dinamiche di mercatorr , ABF e supervisione bancaria, F. Capriglione and M. Pellegrini, (eds.) (Cedam: Padova), 2011, pp. 23–24.
8 . On the origins and formation of the Banking Ombudsman see, G. De Vergottini, entry Ombudsman, 1979, Enc. dir. , XXIX, Milano, 879 ss.; F.
Maimeri, L’Ombudsmanbancario Italia, 1994, F. Riolo, (ed.), La banca e l’arbitration, Roma, 49 ss.; G. Carriero, Crisi del processo civile e gius- tizia stragiudiziale: l’ombudsman bancario, 2002, Foro it., V-14, 249 ss.;
G. Sangiorgio, Un esempio di giustizia “domestica” alternativa a quella dell’A.G.O.: l’Ombudsman – Giurì bancario, 2009, Banca, borsa, tit. cred. , p. 350.
9 . F. Capriglione and A. Miglionico, “The Italian Banking and Financial Arbitrator between iurisdictio and Strengthening of the Supervisory Function,” European Business Law Review, 2012, p. 333; F. Auletta, Arbitro bancariofinanziario e sistemi di risoluzione stragiudiziale delle controversierr , 2011, 1 Società, p. 83.
10. As noted, Italian Legislative Decree No. 28/2010 and the relative provi- sion for implementation (Ministerial Decree No. 180/2010) on civil and commercial mediation have marked a turning point in the identification of settlement techniques in out of court disputes, making provision for the obligation to make an attempt at mediation (required to proceed), before taking the matter to court in civil and commercial areas. This is significant, particularly concerning banking and financial contracts. See Art. 5, clause 1, subsequently modified, based on which the obligation mentioned can be absolved by alternatively turning to one of the media- tion processes covered by decree no. 28, otherwise to the Conciliation and Arbitration Chamber established by the Consob or to the Banking and Financial Ombudsman as set out in the protocol. D. Rossano, L’ABF e la “mediazione obbligatoria”. Problematicità di un coordinamento disciplinare , F. Capriglione and M. Pellegrini, (eds.), ABF e supervisione bancaria (Cedam: Padova) 2011, p. 221.
11. On the basis of Art. 1 of the Ministerial Decree of 18 October 2010, no. 180, “mediation” is the activity performed by an impartial third party and has the objective of aiding one or more of the parties in the search for an amicable agreement in settling the dispute; “mediator” is the person who, individually or as part of a group, performs the mediation, at no time having the power to give judgements or decisions which are binding for those using the service; “conciliation” is the settlement of a dispute following mediation.
12. D. Siclari, La Camera di conciliation presso la Consob e la relativa procedura.
Prime note ,www.amministrazioneincammino. it, 5 June 2009.
13 . These are those registered, before Legislative Decree no. 28/2010, according to Art. 38, clause 2, of Legislative Decree no. 5/2003, and now according to Art. 16 of Legislative Decree No. 28/2010.
14 . V. Mirra, Profili di criticità e prospettive degli strumenti di ADR in materia bancaria/finanziaria , 2013, Riv. arb., 2, 544.
15 . V. Caridi, Commento all’art.27, commi 2 e 3, 2007, La tutela del risparmio.
Commentario della legge 28 December 2005, no. 262 e del D.Lgs. 29 December 2006, no. 303, A. Nigro and V. Santoro, (eds.), Torino; G. Carleo, Primi cenni sugli strumenti di tutela di risparmiatori e investitori istituiti presso la Consob dal D.Lgs. 179/2007: procedure di conciliazione edd arbitrazione, sistema di indennizzo e fondo di garanzia, 2008, F.S. Martorano and V. De Luca, (eds.), Disciplina dei mercati finanziari e tutela del risparmio, Milano, p. 361.
16. M. Pellegrini, Le controversie in materia bancaria e finanziaria , p. 319.
17 . F. Galgano, Le antiche e nuove frontiere del danno risarcibile, 2008, Contratto e impresa , 11 ss.
18. M. Pellegrini, Commento all’art.128 bis tub, in Commentario al testo unico delle leggi in materia bancaria, Capriglione, Pellegrini, Sepe e Troiano, (Cedam: Padova), 2012.
19 . D. Morgante, Commento all’art. 128 bis. Risoluzionedelle controversie, V.
Cuffaro, Codice del consumo , (Milano), 2008.
20. See Constitutional Court, sentence 24 October–6 December 2012, no. 272, which declared that Art. 5, clause 1, of Legislative Decree 4 March 2010, no. 28, was constitutionally illegitimate. The new clause, 1b of Legislative Decree No. 28 was inserted from Art. 84, clause 1, letter b, Legislative Decree 21 June 2013, no. 69, converted, with modifications, by the law of 9 August 2013, no. 98.
21. V. Mirra, Profilidi criticità e prospettive degli strumenti di ADR in materia bancaria/finanziaria, p. 524, which identifies a nomophylactic role for the college of coordination from the moment that, in deciding on the dispute before it, establishes a principle which the other Banking and Financial Ombudsman committees must follow.
22. B. De Carolis, L’Arbitro bancario finanziario come strumento di tutela della trasparenza, 2011, Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, Roma, no. 70.
23. A. Antonucci, L’accesso dell’ABF al giudizio di legittimità costituzionale, F.
Capriglione and M. Pellegrini, p. 157.
24 . F. Maimeri, Specificità del modello ordinatorio dell ’ABF F. Capriglione and M.F Pellegrini, 2011, ABF e supervisione bancaria.
25 . V. Mirra, Profilidi criticità e prospettive degli strumenti di ADR inmateria bancaria/finanziaria , p. 537.
26 . This is undoubtedly to a large extent due to the current provisions, which do not force the intermediaries to turn to the procedures of the chamber, being a free will mechanism, in contrast to the ABF. In fact, the Consob’s
“Carta degli Investitori” project has been used as an opportunity to revise the current mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, aimed at introducing a compulsory participation system for the intermediaries, by means of a modification of Art. 32 c- c ter of the Consolidated Law on r Finance.
27 . F. Capriglione, La giustizia nei rapporti bancari e finanziari. La prospettiva dell’ADR , 2010, Banca, borsa, tit. cred. , I, 272 ss.
28 . G. Montedoro, Mercato e potere amministrativo (Napoli), 2010, p. 331.
155