Burden of Proof in Negative Declaratory Actions for Debt: Analysis of Order No. 9706 of 2024

Recently, the Court of Cassation, with order No. 9706 of April 10, 2024, addressed the issue of the burden of proof in negative declaratory actions for debt. This decision is crucial for understanding the creditor's responsibilities and the consequences of failing to prove the constitutive facts of their right. The order in question not only clarifies the applicability of Article 2697 of the Civil Code but also offers food for thought on how parties should behave in litigation.

General Principles on the Burden of Proof

Article 2697 of the Civil Code establishes the general rule on the allocation of the burden of proof, which applies to all legal actions, including negative declaratory actions for debt. Essentially, it is incumbent upon the creditor to prove the existence of their right, even when facing a negative declaratory action. The Court of Cassation, in order No. 9706, reiterated that the creditor's lack of proof leads to the rejection of their claim.

Allocation of Evidentiary Burdens - Nature of the Action Brought - Relevance - Exclusion - Negative Declaratory Action for Debt - Consequences of Failure to Prove the Constitutive Elements of the Creditory Claim - On the Creditor - Existence - Factual Circumstances. The general rule on the allocation of the burden of proof under Article 2697 of the Civil Code is applicable regardless of the nature of the action brought, with the consequence that, even in the case of a claim for negative declaratory judgment of debt, the consequences of failing to prove the constitutive facts of one's right fall upon the party claiming to be a creditor. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court quashed the appealed judgment that had rejected the negative declaratory claim, deeming the plaintiff's radical challenge to the alleged creditor's allegations insignificant, despite the documentation produced by the latter being insufficient to prove either the contractual title of the claim or the performance of the obligation).

The Specific Case and Its Implications

In the case examined, the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan, which had rejected the negative declaratory action for debt. This decision was made despite the plaintiff's radical challenge to the alleged creditor's claims, thus highlighting the importance of adequate proof by the party asserting a debt. The documentation presented by the alleged creditor was insufficient to prove either the contractual title or the performance of the obligation, effectively necessitating a reconsideration of the creditor's position.

Conclusions

The judgment under review represents an important reminder of the creditor's responsibility to prove their claim, even in a negative declaratory action. It is essential for creditors to be aware of the legal implications of their actions and the importance of providing concrete and sufficient evidence to support their claims. This order not only confirms the principles established by current legislation but also serves as a warning to those who undertake legal actions without a solid evidentiary basis.