Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: link
    • Member State: Italy
    • Common Name:Andrea Segreto v. Società Scuola Isi S.r.l.
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 14/07/2003
    • Court: Corte di cassazione (Supreme court)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1, 1.
  • Headnote
    1. All the controversies concerning a contracts negotiated by a consumer away from business premises fall within the scope of the article 12 of the Law (i.e. “Decreto Legislativo”) 15 January 1992, n. 50. Consequently, the mandatory territorial jurisdiction provided by this article does not apply only to the controversies concerning the right of cancellation (article 4 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50).
  • Facts
    Andrea Segreto opposed to the injunction of payment of Lire 1.185.000 issued by the Giudice di pace di Caltanissetta upon request of Scuola Isi.
    The plaintiff asked the payment of that amount of money for the professional course taken by Mr. Segreto.
    In his opposition, Mr. Segreto claimed that the Giudice di pace di Caltanissetta was not competent for this case on the basis of the provisions of the article 12 of the Law (i.e. “Decreto Legislativo”) 15 January 1992, n. 50.
    The Giudice di pace di Caltanissetta stated that he was not competent and the case has been brought by Mr. Segreto before the Corte di cassazione in order to define the applicable jurisdiction.
  • Legal issue
    The decision concerns the application 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 for the controversies arising from 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 does not only apply to the controversies about the right of cancellation. The article 4 of the Law 15 January 1992, n. 50 states that the consumer has the right to renounce the effects of his undertaking by sending notice under the conditions set forth within the same Law.
    The decision is in compliance with the previous case-law of the Corte di cassazione and, in particular, with the decision dated 29 October 1998, no. 10809 published in Archivio Civile, 1999, p. 316 (please see the relevant abstract).
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result