Documentary credit, NUU of the ICC, clauses of use and not legal or regulatory use, law of lawfulness and uniform rules

Documentary credit
Documentary credit is the irrevocable and irrevocable commitment issued by an issuing bank to the beneficiary to honor the credit on presentation of compliant documents.
Compliant submission means documents drawn up in accordance with the requirements of documentary credit and in accordance with the NUU ICC 600 publication.
The documentary credit institution, also known as a letter of credit, does not have a specific discipline in most legal systems.
In our order there is a concise provision in art 1530 cc that does not contain a proper discipline and does not even outline the operation.
The foundation of the institute is a regulatory body made up of the associations of legal entities involved in the use of this instrument, then rationalized by the International Chamber of Commerce, periodically updated with the latest revision in force since 1 July 2007. Uniform Uses for Documentary Credits, Publication No. 600 of the ICC.

NUU 600
The NUU of the CCI (pubbl UCP 600), in force since 1 July 2007, and the Uniform Banking Practice (pubbl ISBP 745), effective from July 1, 2013, have substantially altered the previous UCP 500 and ISBP 645 publications.
Since this is not the place for an in-depth examination of each single rule, in these short notes are outlined the essential lines of art 14, general criteria for examining documents.
Art 14 Nuu 600, general criteria for examining documents, ex Articles 13 to Par, 21, 22, 37c, 43a of ICC Publication 500, reflects various rules of the previous publication and clearly states that judgment on the compliance of the submission must be based, on the five banking days after the submission, exclusively on the documents submitted and requested by the credit.
It has been pointed out by the new provisions that it is not indispensable that the data in a document be identical to the data from another party present in the document itself, in any other document prescribed by the credit or credit itself, only if they are not discordant.
The degree of diligence and therefore the quality and quantity of the bank’s business in the execution of the mandate received by the payer remains debated, in practice, in business practice and jurisprudence of merit.
Normally, the NUU 600 have overcome the critical issues. In fact, they redefine the interest payer to the commercial transaction for the means of payment by the bank except that in practice documents submitted have conflicting data. And ‘it changed the role of the bank that has a role and a neutral position switch to the role of a subject of qualified professionals which has the function of supporting the commercial transaction was concluded with the execution of the payment; are outlined by the banks conducted for the purpose of co-operating with the counterparty for the realization of their respective interests as desired by the same Nuu. The refusal of payment is only admissible if the total content of the documents submitted may justify the uncertainty as to the non-correspondence of the goods shipped with the documents provided for in the documentary credit, with full and combined application of Article 16 (b) Nuu 600 , that is, a further investigation activity that the bank does by contacting the orderer to see if he is willing to give up the discrepancies found.

Law of Legitimacy
The Supreme Court of Cassation, in its review of the previous NUU, reiterated some of its principles, ruling on the challenge of insufficient document compliance. With the sent. 31.05.2016 n.11263 consolidated the jurisprudential orientation backed since 1997 with the sent 7388, which follows the previous conforms 1130 of 1979, 693 of 1982, 3992 of 1983, 1842 of 1986.
The Supreme Court of Cassation has stated that uniform rules and uses of documentary claims are not legal and regulatory uses, but constitute clauses of use, complementary to the negotiating will of the contractors under art. 1340 cc and are intended to regulate in a uniform manner the operations of opening documentary credit.
The Cassation in its consolidated jurisprudence ruled out a rigid application of the so-called formalism of documentary credit with regard to the activity of checking the correspondence of the documents on the same credit conditions as the mandatory bank, observing how the mandate is executed, although it is bound in forms, it must be translated into a clever and non-automatic verification of formal correspondence between title and documents, to be performed according to the normal knowledge, according to the criterion of common experience; and the criterion of the reasonableness that must guide the bank’s documentary audit activity towards the final judgment of conformity or discordance, if, on the one hand, it must not be limited to verbal and verifiable verifications of documents with the risk of obtaining a judgment of documentary discordance for immediately apparent errors and not incidents of substantive compliance with the terms of the credit, likewise, must not, on the other hand, exonerate into a true trade union on the correspondence of their content with credit terms.