Pesaro, August 1, 2026 – Check the current account, dispute the charges and take the bank to court. Four years after the verdict, the result is overturned: over 157 thousand euros recognized to a historic furniture store in Pesaro. According to the Court, interest and fees were applied to the account that could not be charged in that way. The winner in the long tug of war was a well-known local company that had sued the banking institution. The case was sponsored by the Motta & Partners Law Firm.
Account analysis
At the center of the case was a current account opened in 2007 and linked to a credit line of 1.2 million euros. After years of relationship with the institution, the company had decided to verify the account management in detail. From that analysis, doubts emerged about a series of costs applied over time: interest calculated on other interest and bank fees which, according to the furniture store, had not been foreseen or explained clearly enough.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit started in 2022. The bank opposed the company’s requests, claiming the correctness of the charges and also raising the issue of prescription for some of the older amounts. To understand who was right, the judge ordered two technical consultations. The experts analyzed the contract, the account statements, and all transactions recorded from the beginning of the relationship until March 2022.
Read more The embrace of Cervia around Nicola Musiani: the final farewell to the notes of Candle in the Wind
Interest calculation
The first issue concerned interest calculated on interest already accrued. According to the Court, that system could no longer be applied from 2014. In the following years, moreover, the bank did not demonstrate the existence of a new valid agreement with the client allowing it to continue applying it. Also under examination was the overdraft commission. The contract indicated some percentages, but lacked precise explanations on how they should be calculated, on which amount, and with what frequency. For the judge, the client was therefore not put in a position to clearly understand the cost they would bear. The clause was declared null.
The commission related to fund availability
The same fate for the commission related to fund availability. That item was not present in the original contract and the bank did not prove it had introduced it later with a communication made in the prescribed forms. The Court nevertheless took into account the prescription, excluding from recovery some amounts now too old. Then the consultants recalculated by eliminating the charges considered illegitimate. The result is a positive difference of 103,225.08 euros compared to the disputed balance. Considering also the amounts already present in the account, the total credit recognized to the company was set at 157,507.78 euros, plus legal interest accrued since July 2022.
ant. mar.
