La previsione del TAEG e del piano di ammortamento può sopperire alla mancata indicazione del tasso annuo nominale nei contratti di finanziamento?

This paper analyzes the contrast Milan Courts'case law, which sees the Court of Milan, on the one hand, and the Court of Appeal of Milan, on the other hand, confronting each other regarding the possibility that the TAEG (APR, gross annual percentage rate) and the amortization schedule can make up for the failure to indicate the TAN (annual nominal rate) in financing contracts. On the one hand, in fact, the Court of Milan argues that the failure to indicate the TAN in the loan contract determines the violation of Article 117, paragraph four, t.u.b. (Consolidated Banking Act), with the consequent substitution of the interest rate and other prices and conditions provided therein. On the other hand, the Milan Court of Appeals rebuts that the absence in the contract of the indication of the TAN does not entail the effects provided for in Article 117, fourth and seventh paragraphs, t.u.b. This paper analyzes the arguments behind both approaches, bringing critical arguments to the interpretation of the Court of Appeals of Milan and concluding for the non-fungibility of the indication of TAN with TAEG and/or amortization schedule, arguing on the difference between TAN and TAEG and on the rationale of Article 117, fourth paragraph, t.u.b., which has a transparency function aimed at countering information asymmetries, which is additional to the mere determinacy/determinability referred to in Article 1346 of the Civil Code.