Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 10739
    • Member State: Italy
    • Common Name:M.V. e altro c. Banca Piacenza
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 27/09/2006
    • Court: Tribunale (Court of first instance, Milano)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1.
  • Headnote
    A clause establishing a jurisdiction different from those of the judge where the consumer is resident or domiciled should be considered unfair. This applies also to the consumer contracts concerning investments services.
  • Facts
    Not available.
  • Legal issue
    The Tribunal of Milan confirmed the interpretation of the art. 33, paragraph 2, letter u, of the Consumer Code on the jurisdiction in consumers’ contracts rendered by the Sezioni Unite of the Corte di cassazione in the judgment no. 14669/2003.
    At to the Tribunal of Milan, a clause establishing a jurisdiction different from those of the judge where the consumer is resident or domiciled should be considered unfair.
    It is interesting to note that this interpretation also applies to the consumer contract concerning investment services.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result