European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 10086
Member State Italy
Common Name Società Ceam S.r.l. v. Condominio Arcobaleno
Decision type Other
Decision date 24/07/2001
Court Corte di cassazione (Supreme court)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant
Keywords

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 1, 1.

1. The article 1469-bis, paragraph 3, no. 19, of the Italian Civil Code does not provide an exclusive jurisdiction in consumers’ contracts.
This provision establishes a presumption of unfairness of the clauses establishing that the competent judge is not the one of the place where the consumer is resident or domiciled.
Consequently, if a clause of choice of jurisdiction is declared null and void because it has been considered unfair, the controversies arising from the consumers’ contracts fall under the general forum provided by the articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
The company Ceam S.r.l. has brought an action before the Corte di cassazione asking the judges to determine the jurisdiction (i.e. regolamento di giurisdizione”).
As to the decision of the Tribunale di Bologna, appealed by Ceam S.r.l., the article 1469-bis, paragraph 3, no. 19, of the Italian Civil Code has introduced an exclusive jurisdiction to decide the controversies concerning consumers’ contracts.
The Corte di cassazione has primarily discussed the application of the article 1469-bis and followings of the Italian Civil Code and then the Supreme Court has clarified the interpretation of the article 1469-bis, paragraph 3, no. 19, of the Italian Civil Code.
The Corte di cassazione has qualified the manager of the joint ownership, who is acting on behalf of the joint owners, as a “consumer” for the purposes of the article 1469-bis and followings of the Italian Civil Code.
In particular, in this decision, the Court has interpreted the article 1469-bis, paragraph 3, no. 19, of the Italian Civil Code on the jurisdiction in consumers’ contracts.
For the judges of the Supreme Court, the article 1469-bis, paragraph 3, no. 19, of the Italian Civil Code does not determine an exclusive jurisdiction for the consumers’ contracts.
The Court clarified that this provision gives a presumption of unfairness of the clause establishing a jurisdiction different from those of the judge where the consumer is resident or domiciled.
Whether the clause is declared null and void, the controversies arising from the consumers’ contracts fall under the general forum provide by the articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
This decision has also confirmed the principle that the discipline on the unfair terms (article 1469-bis and followings of the Italian Civil Code) does not apply to the consumers’ contracts that have enforced before its adoption in the Italian legal system.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available