According to the decision of Cassazione Sezioni Unite that clarified the precise interpretation of Art. 1469 bis, para 3, n. 19, such an article introduced a special exclusive forum which may be derogated by the parties through individual negotiation. Therefore the contractual term establishing a place coinciding to one of the forum under Art. 18 and Art. 20 c.p.c., if different from that of the consumer, must be presumed as unfair. Therefore, Art. 1469 ter , para 3, c.c. - which provides the fairness of the clauses reproducing provisions of law – cannot be interpreted in a way that may diminish the consumer’s protection such as in the case in which the "forum destinatae solutionis" is coinciding with the residence of the professional. In consequence of that, other than the ineffectiveness of the clause under Art. 1469 quinquies, para 3, Art. 18 and Art. 20 c.p.c. cannot be applied even for incompatibility with the principle of the succession of laws in time (Cass. 28.8.01 n. 11280; 1.1.03 n. 14669; 28.11.03 n. 18290).
Moreover, the Supreme Court declared that in any case the Tegola Canadese S.p.A has not proven in any way that the signature of the consumer under the general clauses of the contract (in which the clause derogating the competence was present) was the outcome of an individual negotiation, under Art. 1469-ter c.c.
Accordingly, the Corte di Cassazione confirmed the decision of the Giudice di pace di Conegliano.