With Decision No. 6196 of May 24, 2024, the Coordination Panel of the Financial Banking Arbitrator clarifies the starting point from which to calculate the prescription periods for the BA series postal savings bonds.
The case originated from a complaint filed by a co-holder of a BA series bond issued on October 12, 1998, who stated that she went to the intermediary's office to cash it on December 14, 2022. The intermediary refused to cash the bond, noting that it had expired. The complainant then filed a complaint with the intermediary on December 28, 2022, contesting the bond's expiration; the complaint was rejected by the intermediary with a note dated January 5, 2023.
The complainant argued that the bond had ceased to accrue interest on October 12, 2012, citing Article 8 of the Ministerial Decree of December 19, 2000, and Decision No. 8056/2019 of the Coordination Panel, which states that the maturity date of the bonds should be identified as the last day of the solar year of their duration. She concluded that the ten-year prescription period began on December 31, 2012, and therefore the bond was not yet expired when it was presented for cashing.
The intermediary preliminarily raised the exception of the Financial Banking Arbitrator's temporal incompetence, arguing that the Arbitrator could not examine disputes concerning transactions or behaviors that occurred more than six years before the complaint was filed. Furthermore, it also raised
the exception of subject matter incompetence, arguing that postal savings bonds are governed by special legislation.
The Panel – with the decision under discussion – rejected the preliminary exception raised by the intermediary. Indeed, in this case, the Arbitrator was competent despite the contract being concluded more than six years before the complaint. The dispute concerned the verification of a cause for the extinction of the right, a matter subsequent to the bond's formation and related to the conduct of the relationship.
Similarly, the exception of subject matter incompetence was rejected; numerous decisions of the Coordination Panel were cited, establishing that "postal savings bonds" – due to their non- transferability and non-negotiability in the market – cannot be classified as financial products.
Finally, the Panel proceeded to analyze the merits of the issue concerning the starting point of the prescription.
After a complex reconstruction of the regulations applicable over time to various issues of postal savings bonds, the Panel articulated the following legal principle: "For series of postal savings bonds already issued at the date of entry into force of the Ministerial Decree of December 19, 2000, and for which the prescription periods provided by the previous legislation have not yet been completed, Article 8, paragraph 2 of the same decree applies, which establishes the prescription, regarding both principal and interest, after ten years from the bond's maturity date."
Based on the stated principle, the Panel did not uphold the complaint: the bond was subscribed on October 12, 1998, matured on October 12, 2012, and therefore – in the absence of any interruptive acts of prescription, which were not provided by the complainant – expired on October 13, 2022.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.