• Dettagli del caso
    • ID nazionale: Supreme Court, Judgement n. 1666
    • Stato membro: Italia
    • Nome comune:N/A
    • Tipo di decisione: Decisione della Corte suprema
    • Data della decisione: 24/01/2020
    • Organo giurisdizionale: Corte Di Cassazione
    • Oggetto:
    • Attore:
    • Convenuto:
    • Parole chiave: Jurisdictional issues, concept consumer, surety agreement
  • Articoli della direttiva
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2, (b)
  • Nota introduttiva

    The company JULIET s.p.a. appealed to the Supreme Court against the sentence of the Court of Padua in which it declared its territorial incompetence in the judgement of opposition to the injunction presented by C.M. against Juliet s.p.a. The Supreme Court rejected the request of the company JULIET s.p.a. as it believes that, in the matter of a surety contract stipulated between a natural person and a crediting entity to guarantee the obligations of a commercial company, Directive 93/13 art. 2, paragraph 2 lett. B) can be applied. In particular, when the natural person "acts for purposes beyond his professional activity" and there is no functional connection between this and the guaranteed company, the natural person falls within the concept of the consumer. Therefore, C.M., having not carried out activities for the company, had to be qualified as a consumer.

  • Fatti

    Juliet s.p.a. challenged the sentence of the Court of Padua with an application for a “regulation of jurisdiction” before the Court of Cassation. In particular, C.M. (professor of literature) presented opposition to an injunction, issued in favour of Juliet S.p.a (as the guarantor of the M.G.), before the Court of Padua and raised an objection of territorial incompetence based on her quality as a consumer. The Court of Padua declared by order its territorial incompetence in favour of the Court of Trani as it ascertained that C.M. is a "retired professor of literature" who had not acted for purposes inherent to her profession nor could she be considered to have a proven ( family ties with M.G.) a functional relationship with the company guaranteed by the credit institution. The Supreme Court rejected the application of Juliet s.p.a. and confirmed the jurisdiction of the District Court of Trani in which C.M. has her residence.

  • Questione giuridica

    Can the natural person who acts for purposes that are outside of their professional activities and that have no functional connection with the guaranteed company, fall under the concept of "consumer " provided for by Directive 93/13?

  • Decisione

    The Court ruled that the status of consumer referred to in Directive 93/13 art. 2, par. 2 lett. B) has an objective nature and that in surety contracts, not only the guaranteed obligation must be assessed but also the activities carried out by the natural person. Therefore, consumer status is not part of the obligation itself that the subject assumes and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the judge.


    Testo integrale: Testo integrale

  • Casi correlati

    Nessun risultato disponibile

  • Dottrina

    Nessun risultato disponibile

  • Risultato

    The Court rejected the application for territorial incompetence.