Source: http://www.iclg.co.uk/practice-areas/shipping-law/shipping-law-2016/italy
Timestamp: 2016-09-29 17:03:58
Document Index: 207740334

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 482', 'art. 21', 'art. 13', 'Art. 73', 'art. 276', 'art. 419', 'art. 409', 'Art. 2', 'art. 396', 'art. 409', 'art. 3', 'art. 412', 'art. 3', 'art. 418', 'art. 16', 'art. 1', 'Art. 696', 'Art. 584', 'art. 36']

Italy - Shipping Law 2016 · ICLG - International Comparative Legal Guides
Home Practice area Shipping Law Shipping Law 2016 Italy
(i) Collision Italy is signatory to the International Brussels Convention of 25 September 1901 on collision, upon which art. 482 (and following) of the Italian Code of Navigation are patterned. If the collision is either fortuitous or due to force majeure, or its cause cannot be ascertained, damages will be borne by those who have suffered them.
When the collision occurs due to the fault of one of the vessels, the faulty vessel will face liability for damages. If the liability of the collision can be ascribed to more than one vessel, each one is liable in proportion to its fault and to the entity of the subsequent damages. The burden of proof concerning the fault of the ship that caused the collision is upon the claimant.
The action for damages arising from a maritime collision becomes time-barred if the proceedings are not started within two years. However, the time-limit term can be always interrupted by a written request for compensation.
Pollution damages are the responsibility of the polluting vessel and in particular of the ship owner, the registered owner and the captain, who can be held jointly liable towards the State for the damages caused by pollution as provided by art. 21 of the Law no. 979/1982.
Under Italian law, the main operative rules on pollution are provided by the MARPOL Convention and the Legislative Decree no. 202/2007, adopting Directive 2005/35/CE. Arts. 8 and 9 of the latter also provide specific fines for the captain, the crew, the ship owner and the registered owner for unintentional or malicious pollution.
The Brussels Convention of 1969 concerning oil pollution casualties and the London Convention of 1973 allow the Italian government to adopt any measure (also at high seas) to prevent, mitigate and remove the perils of pollution of their coasts. In particular, the Ministry of the Environment, with the help of the local Harbour Masters, can limit or ban the transit or the mooring of ships for the protection of the environment.
(iii) Salvage / general average Italy is signatory of the International Convention on Salvage of 1989, which applies whenever the judicial or arbitral proceedings on salvage are started in Italy or in a State party.
Under the rules of the Convention, any assistance or salvage operation rendered in favour of a vessel entitle the salvor to obtain a reward, calculated on the basis of the criteria listed in art. 13 of the Salvage Convention.
In order to quantify the salvage award, Italian Courts (and arbitration boards) often refer to a percentage of the value of the salved goods. This method does not actually comply with the system put down by the Convention and has been criticised by Jurisprudence.
Art. 73 of the Italian Code of Navigation makes compulsory for the owner the removal of vessels (or planes) sunk in ports, bays, canals or in places of the territorial sea if, according to the Port Authorities, they may imperil or hamper the navigation. In the case of urgency or non-compliance on the part of the owner, the Port Authorities may carry on the wreck removal at the owner’s expenses.
Italy has signed the York-Antwerp Rules, largely reproduced in private contracts and in the domestic legislation. The general rule provides that they are allowed, as general average, all the expenses and the damages which are a direct consequence of a measure reasonably taken by the captain to preserve from peril the property involved in a common maritime adventure.
(iv) Wreck removal Italy is not party to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. This topic is regulated by domestic legislation concerning wreck at sea or washed on land performed by the same owner or third parties, public authority included. All sailors coming across a wreck of a ship or aeroplane shall notify its punctual position within 3 days to the local authority.
The first party that notifies the local authority about his intention to proceed with the removal may proceed and apply, in case of success, for a compensation to be liquidated up to the limit of the actual value of the wreck in accordance with similar principles proper of salvage activities. In case of delay in carrying out removal operations, the right to compensation and reimbursement of costs for the removal will be denied.
Special rules will apply in case of cetaceans washed on land (1/20 of its value).
Once started, the operations may not be suspended or stopped and in case of completion of the same the goods collected shall be handed within the term of 10 days.
Italy is not signatory to the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976 (LLMC). The Legislative Decree no. 111/2012 adopted some rules similar to the ones provided by the Convention, but their applicability is limited to ships under 300 gross tons only.
The owner can limit the obligations undertaken during the voyage and for the necessity of the voyage to the exclusion of those deriving from facts or acts done intentionally or recklessly. The limit is up to the value of the ship and the freights. Creditors subject to limitation concur in accordance with the respective causes of preference.
Insofar as the obligations incurred by the owner due to facts or acts brought about during the same voyage, exceptions made for those made intentionally or recklessly, the owner can limit his total debt to a sum equal to the value of the vessel plus the amount of the freight and any other income of the voyage.
As to the valuation of the vessel, art. 276 of the Italian Code of Navigation provides as follows: “For the purpose of the assessment of the limitation fund, attention is to be paid to the value of the vessel at the time limitation is applied for but not beyond the end of the voyage, provided that said value is neither less than one-fifth nor greater than two-fifths of the value of the vessel at the commencement of the voyage. If the value of the vessel at the moment of the application for limitation is less than the minimum amount contemplated by the precedent paragraph, the fifth part of the value of the vessel at the beginning of the voyage is taken into consideration.”
Creditors compete for distribution of the limitation fund in accordance with the respective causes of preference and right of pre-emption.
As far as collision, grounding or other major casualties are concerned, the power of investigation principally belongs to the Port Authority of the place where the accident occurred, where the damaged ship is registered, where the first shipwrecked person has been brought, or where the first news about the casualty has been heard. The Port Authority may initially proceed with a “Summary Enquiry” that, in cases of serious casualty, will be followed by a “Formal Enquiry” ruled out by the Head Office of the Port District (i.e. “Direzione marittima”). The latter enquiry is aimed to investigate and individuate the causation and liability (even of a criminal nature) of the accident.
The Ministry of Transport may institute special commissions of enquiry, replace and reiterate the Formal Enquiry yet to be carried out.
Recently, the new General Directorate of railway and maritime investigations, functionally dependent on the Minister of Transport, has been set up. This office will coordinate investigations with the new General Directorate of the supervision of Port Authorities, port facilities and maritime transport and inland waterways. EU Member States potentially involved in the casualty may be invited to participate to investigations.
Directive 99/35/EC of 29 April 1999, concerning mandatory surveys of roll-on/roll-off ferry and high-speed passenger vessels operating on scheduled services, established a precise reference to the principles, contained in the “Code of Casualty Investigations” adopted by the International Maritime Organisation on 27 November 1997 (IMO Code), for the investigation of marine casualties.
Lastly, if there are criminal connotations, the public prosecutor will evaluate whether to commence criminal proceedings.
Marine cargo claims in Italy are regulated by art. 419 (and following) of the Italian Code of Navigation. The liability regime of the carriage of cargo at sea reflects the regime established by the International Brussels Convention, dated 25 August 1924 (as amended by the Protocols of 1968 and 1979, also known as Hague-Visby Rules). However, even in respect of international carriage, the domestic regime may apply in cases where the Convention will not be applicable, i.e. when the relevant bill of lading is not issued within, the relevant carriage is not from a port of a Contracting State, or its wording does not request the same Convention to apply.
Under the Hague-Visby Rules, the key principle in matters of cargo claims is that the carrier is duty-bound to deliver cargo at a destination in the same quality and quantity conditions as described in the document of transport, unless loss or damages complained of prove either to have derived from one of the so-called excepted perils (provided by art. IV, such as fire, act of god, default of the Master).
The carrier is liable for the cargo unless he proves that the damages (or the delay) have not been caused by his negligence or by the negligence of his employees. However, the burden of proof is reversed when the loss is due to latent defects, unseaworthiness or other extraordinary events such as piracy, sea perils, and acts of war.
Misdeclaration of cargo culpably concealed by the shipper and not discoverable by the carrier at loading time may involve the liability of cargo interests if the stated damages appear to be consequent upon the wrong description of the goods inaccurately or recklessly furnished by the shipper. Otherwise, it is the carrier’s duty to check and ascertain the nature and quantity of the loaded goods. If the carrier ascertains discrepancies between the actual quality, quantity or value of the goods, he is entitled to unload the goods or to write his reserves on the bill of lading.
Italy is neither a party to the Hamburg Rules nor the Rotterdam Rules.
Under the heading “Carrier’s responsibility for damages to person”, art. 409 of the Italian Code of Navigation, it is dictated that “the carrier is liable for the accidents hurting passengers and deriving from facts which happened between the commencement of the embarkation up to the completion of the disembarkation unless the carrier proves that the event derived from a cause not imputable to him”. In brief, the carrier is duty-bound to protect the passengers’ safety and, in cases of accidents, is shouldered by the burden of proof as to its innocence.
Since 31 December 2012, the CE Regulation no. 392/2009 prevails in Italy in matters of responsibility of carriers of passengers by sea, insofar as regards accidents to passengers and their luggage; as a consequence, arts. 1–16 and 18–23 of the Athens Convention of 1974, as modified under the Protocol of 2002, will apply in substitution of domestic rules.
Art. 2 of the CE Regulation extends to the carriage by sea of passengers inside every State Member on board of vessels classed as A and B. In further consequence thereof, art. 396 of the Italian Code of Navigation, providing that the contract of transport ought to be proved in writing, is no longer applicable, as well as art. 409, because the carrier’s liability is now regulated under art. 3.1 and 3.2 of the Athens Convention.
It may be worth adding that even art. 412, in matters of carrier’s liability as to the luggage, is likewise no longer applicable, having been replaced by art. 3.4 of the Athens Convention. Accordingly, art. 418 is no longer in force, and the two-year limitation period will apply, as provided for under art. 16 of the Convention.
Bearing in mind the fundamental distinction between maritime liens and maritime claims, suffice here to remind the reader that Italy is party to the Lien Convention of 1926 and the Arrest Convention of 1952. Both international sources provide the right to secure credits of a specific nature under some different and detailed conditions.
The former Convention is almost identical to some specific provisions of the national legislation. The latter Convention entitles a claimant to arrest the vessel or a “sister vessel” in cases where a maritime claim arises according to the list of cases provided by art. 1 of the same Convention.
According to Italian Case Law, the rules of the Arrest Convention apply even if the Flag State of the ship to arrest does not belong to a Contracting State of the Convention.
The petition of arrest can be filed before any Italian Court, disregarding the competent forum for the merits of the case to be found abroad.
The arrest does not grant jurisdiction in the case of valid jurisdiction or arbitration clause indicating a foreigner competent forum.
The arrest can be granted only after the relevant vessel entered the geographical limits of the Port State of the Court before which the petition has been filed.
Notarial power of attorney (POA) is requested upon claimants as a procedural condition precedent for filing any petition or application before an Italian Court. Exceptionally, the Captain of the relevant ship and the vessel’s agent may execute the POA and entrust Italian or EU lawyers to proceed in Court.
As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the applicant shall provide a good, arguable case.
The case on the merits has to be initiated (if not yet commenced) before the competent forum within a 60-day term (save for different directions of the Court).
The proceedings are essentially ruled after a short trial hearing, and the Court will decide upon the available evidence.
The Order of arrest may be appealed before a panel of three judges (different from the one who has previously heard the case at first instance).
Italian law allows unpaid bunker suppliers to file a petition in Court for the arrest of the supplied vessel lying in Italian waters, in order to secure their credit, irrespective of jurisdiction, on the merits. Save for the case contemplated by the Lien Convention concerning claims resulting from contracts entered into or acts done by the Master, where such contracts or acts are necessary for the preservation of the vessel or the continuation of its voyage, a bunker supplier may take recourse to the general instrument at Italian procedural law of (conservative) seizure. This way, the claimant shall prove not only his good and arguable case, but also the risk to miss enforcing his right of credit pending the case on the merits.
A chartered vessel might be arrested, provided that the unpaid bunker appears to have been ordered or received by the Master “pursuant to his legal powers, even if he is operator of the ship, for the necessities of the ship or for the continuation of the voyage”.
Contractual liens over property on board a ship and maritime liens, requiring physical possession of the property subject to the lien, are recognised and enforced.
Bunkers on board a ship can be arrested independently of the vessel.
In relation to disputes arising from maritime claims in Italy, the acceptance of security in the form of a letter of undertaking issued by a first-rank Italian bank or insurance company based in Italy is common practice. The issuance of a P&I Club letter of guarantee in the ordinary standard of wording is largely accepted. As a matter of strict law, it shall be noted that the Italian Code of Civil Procedure requests a “suitable guarantee” that could be stringently interpreted as a bank guarantee only. As for the amount of the security, an Italian Court will require the amount of the formulated claim, plus interest and costs (generally under a forfeiture increase of approximately 20%), to be covered. Italian Courts rarely request counter-security in respect of a potential wrongful arrest.
Art. 696 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides a very useful legal instrument (“accertamento tecnico preventivo”, or ATP) to urgently ascertain the status of goods, such as typically – in maritime claims – the cargo or the ship, when their conditions may vary with time. In practice, the Court will appoint a forensic expert at the presence of other private surveyors appointed by the parties. The results of the survey become opposable in the following proceedings to all the parties which appeared in the ATP proceedings.
The Judge having jurisdiction on the merits may authorise the anticipatory questioning of witnesses who may be no longer available in the future, provided always that the other party’s rights are not prejudiced.
Any document or sort of evidence that may be relevant for litigation purposes may be judicially seized when the right of disposal or exhibition is disputed or their temporary detention is appropriate.
Art. 584 of the Maritime Code provides a special proceeding of witnessing on oath of the Log Book.
Acquisition of the files and documents produced during the Formal Enquiry (if any) is always recommended, as such evidence is considered to be valid and enforceable, until proven otherwise.
Under the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, parties do not have a general duty to disclose all the documents in their possession. However, the Judge can issue an order to disclose specific documents upon one party’s request, provided that the requesting party clearly indicates the document to be disclosed. The request of disclosure can also be addressed to public administrations.
The typical procedure and time-scale applicable to maritime disputes, either before a Court or Arbitration’s panel, contemplate initially the filing of the Plaintiff’s writ and Defendants’ rejoinders. The discovery stage will subsequently take place, and the parties may submit evidence and pre-trial questioning of the witnesses and/or the completion of survey operations with the intervention of a Court-appointed surveyor flanked by the surveyors appointed by the parties.
For a clear view of the procedural system, please visit: http://prezi.com/sz77a-btiq84/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share.
Mediation and alternative forms of dispute resolution are relatively uncommon, and are subject to the general procedural rules.
The main contra related to legal proceedings in Italy is that they are rather protracted, although cases involving the arrest of vessels or ATP are dealt with quickly.
Computerised proceedings of the trial have been introduced in Italy since June 2014, and statistics show that it is tremendously (by more than half) affecting the time of Civil Court cases.
The Supreme Court Jurisprudence is highly respected and (albeit not binding) is habitually followed by the lower Courts.
Notarial power of attorney is generally required prior to starting or defending any Court or arbitration litigations.
Pursuant to art. 36 of the Regulation no. 1215/2012, the decisions issued by any EU State are automatically recognised in Italy, provided that they have a specific form (decision, decree, and ordinance). In order to become enforceable, a specific request must be filed before an Italian Court.
As to the decisions issued by non-EU States, a judgment rendered by a foreign Court having jurisdiction in accordance with the Brussels Convention, dated 27 September 1968, is automatically recognised in Italy, provided that (i) it has been duly served upon the defendant, (ii) it is definitive (not subject to any appeal), (iii) there is no precedent decision in conflict, and (iv) the decision is not contrary to any Italian imperative rule.
So far, as to arbitration awards rendered abroad, the petitioner must resort to the president of the Court of Appeal of the district where the other party resides; if it is not resident in Italy, the Rome Court of Appeal is to be seized. The petitioner must file the original award or a certified copy together with the arbitration agreement or equivalent; either the original or a certified copy. Documents originally not written in Italian must be accompanied by a certified sworn translation. The president of the Court of Appeal will ascertain the formal regularity of the award and declare it enforceable within the republic territory unless (i) the dispute could not be arbitrated according to Italian law, or (ii) the award is contrary to the public order.
As well as most Continental nations, Italy has a codified law-system, divided in various separate codes, differing in nature (substantive and procedural) and as to their particular content (mainly civil code, criminal code, code of navigation, code of civil procedure, code of criminal law procedure). In Italy, the general tendency is to support arbitration in its various shapes. The rather academic distinction between “ritual” and “irritual” arbitration still exists, and is worthy of note, because the “ritual” arbitration results in an award ultimately comparable to a Court’s judgment. On the other hand, the “irritual arbitration” is eminently of a contractual nature and can be enforced accordingly. It can be appealed only on grounds that may affect a contract. Acknowledgment The writer wishes to thank his father Angelo for his contribution to this chapter, and for patiently and constantly making his son the best version of himself.