Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 372
    • Member State: Italy
    • Common Name:Soc. Creditfiditalia v. Silvana Buccelli
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 14/01/2000
    • Court: Corte di cassazione (Supreme court)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 1.
  • Headnote
    3. The article also states the mandatory jurisdiction of the judge of the place where the consumer is resident or domiciled for the cases on the right of cancellation from the contracts negotiated away from business premises.
  • Facts
    Creditcon s.p.a. (now Creditfiditalia s.p.a.) has obtained an injunction from the Pretore of Genova concerning the payment by Mrs. Silvana Buccelli of a certain amount of money (Lire 5.954.400).
    The plaintiff affirmed that Mrs. Buccelli has agreed on a consumer credit contract with the company in order to cover the costs of a professional course for his daughter. Creditcon s.p.a. claimed that Mrs. Buccelli has never paid the sum for the service indicated in the credit contract.
    Mrs. Buccelli rejected the injunction by stating that - under the provisions of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50 - the Pretore of Genova had no jurisdiction over the case.
    Moreover, she affirmed that the professional course has never started and she concluded that, following the breach of the contract for the professional course, the consumer credit contract was null and void. On such basis, she has refused to pay the sum requested by Creditcon s.p.a.
    The Pretore of Genova agreed with her argument and refused to decide the case in question, by stating that he has no jurisdiction in such case.
    Creditcon s.p.a. brought the case before the Corte di cassazione to determine the jurisdiction.
  • Legal issue
    The decision concerns the interpretation of the article 12 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50 that provides the mandatory jurisdiction of the judge of the place where the consumer is resident or domiciled on the cases concerning the contracts negotiated away from business premises.
    From a literal interpretation of some articles of the said Law, the Corte di cassazione concluded that the article 12 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50, applies only when the controversy is about the existence, the exercise and the other issues concerning the right of cancellation.
    Such provision states that the consumer has the right to renounce the effects of his undertaking by sending notice under the conditions provided by such Law.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result