Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 10809
    • Member State: Italy
    • Common Name:CE.RI.P. S.a.s. v. Laura Proietti
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 29/10/1998
    • Court: Corte di cassazione (Supreme court)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 1. Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 6
  • Headnote
    1. All the controversies arising from the consumer contracts negotiated away from business premises should be decided by the judge of the place where the consumers is resident or domiciled.
    2. The parties may not derogate to this provision of the Law (i.e. “Decreto Legislativo”) 15 January 1992, n. 50.
  • Facts
    CE.RI.P. S.a.s. sued before the Giudice di Pace of Lanciano Mrs. Laura Proietti asking the judge to condemn her to pay to the company the amount of Lire 2.000.000.
    As for the plaintiff, Mrs. Laura Proietti has agreed on a contract with the company to take part in a professional course (i.e. use of the personal computers).
    The contract expressly provides a clause of derogation to the ordinary rules about the competent judge in case of controversy.
    Mrs. Laura Proietti asked for the application of the article 12 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50, and affirmed the invalidity of that clause.
    The judge of Lanciano agreed with the arguments of Mrs. Proietti.
    CE.RI.P. S.a.s. brought the case before the Corte di cassazione and asked for a “Regolamento di giurisdizione” that means a decision stating the competent judge for the case in question.
  • Legal issue
    The decision concerns the application of the article 12 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50.
    The article provides the mandatory jurisdiction of the judge of the place where the consumer is resident or domiciled for the contracts negotiated away from business premises.
    The Court has based this decision on the literal interpretation of the relevant provisions and has concluded that the said article 12 applies to all controversies arising from the interpretation of Law 15 January 1992, n. 50.
    Thus, the mandatory jurisdiction applies not only to the issues concerning the right of cancellation that provides that the consumer has the right to renounce the effects of his undertaking by sending notice under the conditions set forth by the same Law.

    The decision also stated that the article 12 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50 is mandatory and that it is not subject to derogation.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result