Source: https://www.irglobal.com/article/jurisdiction-on-international-sale-of-goods-involving-an-italian-seller-a100
Timestamp: 2019-03-20 05:35:11
Document Index: 343254114

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 31', 'art. 41', 'art. 5', 'art. 5']

Jurisdiction on international sale of goods involving an Italian seller | IR Global
Published 05 April 2017 by Graziotto Legal - International Law Firm
Decision: Decision No. 3558/2017 by the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation
In international sale of goods involving an Italian seller, if the parties did not rule jurisdiction, but explicitly agreed about the actual place of delivery in a EU Country different from Italy, Italian Courts lack jurisdiction.
The concept of “place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered” mentioned in art. 5 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be understood as the place where the actual, physical final delivery of the goods - that marks the acquisition of material availability (and not only legal) by the buyer - has to be performed, with the effect of releasing the seller.
Under this respect, art. 5 of the regulation prevails on the Vienna Convention (whose art. 31, mentioning the delivery to the carrier, simply rules the duties and rights of parties, but not the jurisdiction).
Keywords: #internationalsaleofgoods; #italylaw; #jurisdiction; #preliminaryruling;
An Italian company served an injunctive decree (order to pay) to a Dutch company, following to supplies of jewelry items.
The Dutch company filed opposition, raising the following objections: preliminarily, the lack of jurisdiction by the Italian court; secondarily, the territorial incompetence of the court; then the declaration of breach of contract y the Italian seller.
During the opposition procedure, the Dutch buyer raised the preliminary ruling about jurisdiction, through appeal to the Court of Cassation in Italy, based on art. 41 of the civil procedure code.
The Italian buyer claimed some procedural issues, as well as the inadmissibility of the appeal because the Dutch company filed a counterclaim, thus implicitly accepting the jurisdiction of Italy.
The Supreme Court found the appeal to be just.
Main relevant jurisprudence.
Decision no. 24244/2015 – Joint sections of the Court of Cassation
Decision no. C-381/08 – EU Court of Justice (Car Trim – Keysafety, points 60 and 61)
Decision no. C-87/10 – EU Court of Justice (Electrosteel Europe s.a.)
The Italian Court of Cassation, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice, has recalled its previous decisions where the jurisdiction issue in international sale of goods has been examined.
In civil and commercial areas, if the parties did not explicitly agreed about jurisdiction, this is ruled by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, now replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters).
Accordingly to the EU Court, that the Italian Court of Cassation supports, the concept of “place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered” mentioned in art. 5 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be understood as the place where the actual, physical delivery has to be performed, with the effect of releasing the seller.
Therefore, in respect of the international sale of goods, the “place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered” needs to be identified with economical criteria, in relation to the final delivery of the goods, that marks the acquisition of material availability - and not only legal - by the buyer.
Therefore, the Supreme Court found the appeal of the Dutch company to be just.
When an Italian seller is involved in international sale of goods, if the parties did not rule jurisdiction, this might be an issue: if the parties explicitly agreed (and this must be actually and formally done, general terms on delivery notes and/or invoices are not enough) about the actual place of delivery in a EU Country different from Italy, Italian Courts lack jurisdiction.
The parties who just referred to Incoterms may also have an issue, because if they did not explicitly and clearly state and agree about the place of delivery, objections may arise.
Vienna Convention mentions the delivery to the carrier, but this simply rules the duties and rights of parties, not jurisdiction: this convention sets the terms of international sale of goods under the “material” discipline.
If parties did not rule jurisdiction, then Regulation No 44/2001 (nor Regulation 1215/2012) must be referred to, and for this purpose the connecting factor set by art. 5 has been interpreted as the place where the actual, physical final delivery of the goods - that marks the acquisition of material availability (and not only legal) by the buyer - has to be performed, with the effect of releasing the seller.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (now replaced by Regulation No. 1215/2012)
Fulvio Graziotto (Graziotto Legal - International Law Firm)