ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Francesco Paolo Patti and Marta Vittoria Colombo, Studio Patti
operators must ensure that the use of a smart contract is embedded within a broader contractual framework that governs interpretation, allocation of risk, mecha- nisms for modification or suspension of performance, and dispute resolution. In addition, where the underlying transaction is subject to mandatory form requirements, the deployment of a smart contract does not derogate from such require- ments. Transactions that must be executed by way of public deed or other formal instruments remain sub- ject to those rules irrespective of any automated exe- cution layer. In practice, this has led to the widespread adoption of “dual-layer” structures, in which a written agreement defines the legal relationship between the parties, while the smart contract code is used as a tool to implement and automate performance in accord- ance with the agreed terms. 1.1.5 Industry and Trade Bodies The Italian Blockchain Association presents itself as a multidisciplinary and sector-wide organisation whose primary function is to support the orderly and responsible development of blockchain technologies within the Italian legal and economic system. Its role is best characterised as that of an “ecosystem infra- structure”, in that it seeks to connect a broad range of stakeholders – including legal professionals, technol- ogy developers, academic institutions, entrepreneurs and established businesses – around shared meth - odological and governance principles, rather than advancing a specific commercial agenda or techno- logical orthodoxy. A defining feature of the Association’s positioning is its non-partisan and inclusive approach. It does not adhere to a single ideological vision of blockchain development, but instead maintains an open frame- work capable of accommodating different technologi- cal architectures and governance models, whether centralised, decentralised or hybrid. This neutrality enhances its credibility as an interlocutor in a field often characterised by fragmentation and competing narratives. From a practical standpoint, one of the Associa- tion’s most relevant functions is to act as a structured counterpart to public institutions and supervisory
authorities. In a regulatory environment where tech- nological complexity can hinder effective dialogue, the Association contributes by translating technical developments into legally and policy-relevant terms. At the same time, it provides a channel through which industry participants can articulate co-ordinated posi- tions, thereby facilitating more coherent and informed engagement with legislative and regulatory processes. Another important dimension of its activity lies in the promotion of common standards and best practices. This function is particularly significant in a context where the applicable legal framework is often princi- ples-based and where compliance outcomes depend heavily on technological design choices. The Associa- tion therefore encourages the adoption of approaches centred on quality and security by design, with a view to ensuring that technological solutions are developed in a manner consistent with regulatory expectations. 1.2 Crypto-Assets 1.2.1 Property Considerations Under Italian law, crypto-assets are not expressly clas- sified as “property” in the traditional civil law sense. There is no explicit recognition of crypto-assets as “ beni ” under the Italian Civil Code, nor a dedicated regime of real rights comparable to that applicable to tangible assets. Nonetheless, the legal system accommodates them through a functional approach that combines contractual principles, factual control and regulatory safeguards. In practice, the holder of the private key is generally regarded as the subject capable of exercising control over the crypto-asset. However, legal protection of such position is not based on classical property reme- dies, but rather on a combination of contractual rights (for example, vis-à-vis custodial providers), tort law and, where relevant, criminal law. As a result, owner- ship claims are enforced differently from those relating to tangible property: the focus is less on possession as a legal concept and more on demonstrable control and the underlying contractual framework. The transfer of crypto-assets is likewise not governed by a specific statutory rule. It is generally understood to occur through the combination of a technical trans- action recorded on a distributed ledger and the par-
339 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook