In case of controversy subject to the application of art. 6 Legislative Decree 8 October 2007, n. 179 (provision, subsequently repealed, that provided the clam USOLA REPOSITER inserted in the contracts, stipulated with the investors, relative to services and activities of investment, including those accessories, as well as i contracts of management collective of the savings, it was binding only per the intermediary, to less that this not showed that it was fruit a one treat VAT direct), must be considered proven, to senses of art. 115, co. 1, cod. proc. civ. that the clause referee contained in a agreement picture concerning the Futura conclusion of contract of swap, albeit contained in module prepared by the institute of credit, it is fruit of specific negotiation individual and, in case of failure contestation from part of the investor of such circumstance and where it is peaceful between the parts that the agreement framework state stipulated e.g. Clusively in ratio per contract of swap and that the stipulation of the contract of swap it is it was object specific negotiation individual, at the fine of Make the product purchased strictly related ad other contract (in the species, of mortgage mortgage) stipulated the same day between the same parts.