The Italian Supreme Court (S.U. decision no. 2736/2017) has established that the preliminary ruling on Italy’s jurisdiction is an extraordinary and exceptional institute and cannot be raised by a defendant having residence or domicile in Italy.
The case before the Italian Supreme Court involved a U.S. company and an Italian company. The former served an injunctive decree (order to pay) to the latter for the payment of outstanding debts deriving from the execution of a framework distribution contract related to the supply of IT services. The Italian company opposed the order of the judge, asking for a preliminary ruling on Italy’s jurisdiction according to Article 41 of Italy civil procedure code.
The Supreme Court, seized to decide over Italy’s jurisdiction, declared the appeal inadmissible, notwithstanding the content of the contract providing for arbitration (instead of domestic jurisdiction). The Court based its decision on the circumstance that the defendant had its legal seat in Italy.
avv. Sondra Faccio
For further information, please contact us by using the form.
We are pleased to announce the participation of our colleague, avv. Sondra Faccio, to the international Jean Monnet Summer School “The EU and Human Rights in a Time of Crisis”.
27/04/2017 - FRENCH LAW IMPOSES DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS, HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT UPON MULTINATIONALS
On February 21st, 2017, the French National Assembly approved a new bill imposing due diligence obligations, as to human rights, health, safety and the environment, upon multinational enterprises headquartered in France. These obligations cover not only multinationals’ activities in France, but also the activities undertaken abroad by subsidiaries and entities, within the multinationals’ supply chain.
06/04/2017 - THE ECJ EXCLUDES THE APPLICATION OF EU HARMONISED RULES ON COMMERCIAL AGENCY IN CASE OF AN AGENT ESTABLISHED IN TURKEY
The Court of the European Union, in the case Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v. Petersime NV (Case C‑507/15), has ruled that the circumstance that the principal is established in a Member State does not represent a sufficiently close link with the European Union for the purpose of applying the provisions of Directive 86/653 on commercial agency (hereinafter the “Directive”), including those on indemnity, where the commercial agent carries out its activities outside the European Union.