-
Italia
Italy – Is your forum selection clause enforceable?
20 marzo 2018
- Derecho internacional
Under Italian law, the parties to a contract – both being private legal entities – are generally free to agree upon the court having jurisdiction on any disputes that may arise from such contract.
However, although such clauses are valid, their enforceability can be limited by certain formal requirements, which should be taken into account.
Curiously enough, such requirements are often stricter when both parties are based in Italy, looser when one of them is based abroad, particularly in another EU country.
Nevertheless, considering the current uncertainties in case law, a cautious approach in contract drafting is justifiable in any case.
Exclusive or non exclusive forum?
Let’s consider for example the following clause in a commercial contract between two private companies: «Competent court – The courts of Milan shall be the competent forum on any dispute«.
This clause apparently does not raise any doubts. However, it has recently held by the Italian Supreme Court (“Corte di Cassazione”) to be unenforceable, particularly from the point of view of its non-exclusivity ( Supreme Court Civil Section (Cass. Civ. Sez.) VI-3, order 25.1.2018 n. 1838).
In that case, an Italian company had the other party (another Italian company) sign its general contract terms containing the above mentioned clause. Notwithstanding that, the first company was then served with a payment order (“decreto ingiuntivo”) issued by the Court of Siena, where the second company had started lawsuit despite having approved the forum clause.
The first company was not successful in opposing against the payment order by raising the argument of the lack of jurisdiction of the Siena Court. In fact, it could not enforce the forum clause included in its general contract terms because the clause did not specify that the courts of Milan were the “exclusive” forum.
Therefore, to the opinion of our Supreme Court (actually confirming its own previous case law) in order for that clause to be enforceable as desired, it should have read: “The courts of Milan shall be the exclusively competent forum on any disputes”.
It is noteworthy, though, that the same general contract terms, if signed by a company based in another EU country different from Italy (e.g. France), could have successfully prevented the French company from starting lawsuit in France, even if the forum clause did not specify its exclusivity.
That is because Article 25 of EU Regulation n°1215/2012 expressly states that the “prorogation of jurisdiction” clause “shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise”.
This was also confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court as well (see for example the decision n°3624 of 8.3.2012).
Now, what happens if the contractual partner of the Milan company is a company based in a non-EU country not bound by international treaties on the subject? For example, a U.S. company?
Would the clause “The courts of Milan shall be the competent forum on any dispute” be considered as exclusive or not, from the perspective of an Italian court?
Article 6 of Regulation 1215/2012 should lead the Italian court to interpret that clause as exclusive pursuant to Article 25 of the same Regulation. However, in similar cases in the past, Italian courts have considered such clauses as non-exclusive by applying the domestic rules of private international law (art. 4 of Law 218/95) and interpreting them in line with Article 29, second paragraph, of the Civil Procedure Code (see for example Tribunale of Milan, 11.12.1997). As a consequence, in the case described above, if the U.S. company despite the above clause starts a lawsuit in its country, the decision issued in the U.S. may be recognized in Italy.
The Hague Convention of 30.6.2005 on forum selection agreements should solve the above and other issues, as it states (just like the European Regulation) that the chosen forum is exclusive except for an express agreement on the contrary. However, such Convention at the moment is in force only in a very limited number of countries (European Union, Mexico, Singapore).
In such an uncertain situation, if one wants the chosen forum to be exclusive regardless of where the other party is based, the most prudent approach under Italian law is certainly to specify exclusivity in the clause.
“Special approval” of unfair terms (art. 1341 of the civil code)
Another precondition of enforceability of forum selection clauses under Italian law, is the requirement of “special approval” of such clauses, if included in general contract terms. Pursuant to Article 1341, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, certain types of “unfair” clauses in general contract terms are unenforceable unless “specially approved” in writing. Such “unfair terms” include also arbitral and forum selection clauses, if favorable to the party drafting the general contract terms.
According to the standing jurisprudence of our Supreme Court, such “special approval” in practice occurs by putting a second signature on the contract, which has to be autonomous and separated from the signature that normally is placed to approve the contract in its entirety. Also, such second approval must expressly refer to each single unfair term, by citing number and heading of each such clause.
However, the special approval requirement for the forum choice clauses only applies to contracts between Italian parties, not to international contracts.
In particular, whenever EU Regulation 1215/2012 applies, the less stringent formal requirements set forth by Article art. 25 have to be complied with, even when the forum clause is part of general contract terms. In such a case, it is necessary and sufficient for the contract signed by the parties to include an express reference to the general terms containing the forum clause (see for example Cass. Sez. Un. 6.4.2017 n.8895). In case of general contract terms in a sale contract concluded electronically, a forum choice clause (again under the EU Regulation) can be validly accepted by a “click” (see EUCJ decision n.322 of 21.5.2015).
Even applying the Italian domestic rules in private international law (article 4, Law 218/95) – that is, essentially, in matters involving non-EU (or non-EEA/EFTA) parties – the “special approval” condition is not required for forum selection clauses, because such requirement is not expressly provided for by Article 4, and also by way of interpretation (Constitutional Court 18/10/2000, n. 428).
Notwithstanding the above, however, it has not yet been finally clarified whether or not the “special approval” requirement per Article 1341 of the Civil Code should also apply to international contracts (if governed by Italian laws) as a condition to enforce the other clauses that the law provision considers as “unfair”, such as for example limitation or exclusion of liability clauses.
Therefore, it is still very common in Italy to draft general contract terms, also for international contracts, providing for the other party’s second signature for special approval of the unfair terms.
All this, hoping for the Italian jurisprudence to develop a more modern and international approach in the future.
Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.
En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.
Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).
Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.
En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.
En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.
En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.
En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.
En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.
La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.
En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.
La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.
La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.
Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).
Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.
De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.
La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.
Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:
- Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
- La previsibilidad de la misma.
- Los límites cuantificativos.
Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano
En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.
En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.
Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.
Los instrumentos para tutelarse
El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.
La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.
Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).
Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.
The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).
The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.
In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.
First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.
Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.
The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.
The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.
A crucial clause in international contracts is the one which deals with litigation.
My advice, since we have seen that negotiation can be pretty long, complicated, and, exhausting, is that such clauses should not be the last to be dealt with, often times late at night when parties are exhausted, but the among the first.
Generally parties argue at length on such clauses, because neither party is willing to give up on its national jurisdiction for different reasons, foremost of all the fear that foreign judges would not be impartial and treat with favor the local part.
This deadlock often leads to bad compromises, like choosing the judge of a third state or combining the jurisdiction of one state with the application of the law of the other, which is definitely not recommended.
There is no one-fits-all solution to offer here: the advice is that such clauses should be tailor made on a case by case basis, and that the choice of a state court or arbitration should be expressed taking into account where the final decision shall be enforced.
If we foresee that our client may seek payment of a price or claim damages for breach of contract, ‘where is the money’ or ‘where are the assets’ should be the driving factor, and the choice of jurisdiction should be made accordingly.
If there is no such concern, and litigation may be foreseen only or mostly in a defensive scenario, then the proximity to the money or assets is no more a priority, and other options can be evaluated: in that case, the choice of a Judge in a far away country can be the best option, as it is a strong deterrent for litigation.
When battling for a clause with domestic jurisdiction, however, one should keep in mind that the process of recognition of a foreign decision is generally a rather complicated and lengthy process, even if (as is the case of Italy and China), there is a bilateral treaty for mutual recognition of judicial decisions (but very few cases have been recognized and enforced in China thereafter); it should also be kept in mind that all documents filed with the application for recognition of the foreign decision need to be translated into mandarin, notarized and legalized, which in complex litigations can represent an unforeseen additional high cost.
In other cases, like in the USA, where there is no bilateral treaty in this field, to litigate abroad often means that the foreign decision will be almost useless, with the necessity to sue again in China to seek enforcement of the decision.
Arbitration can be a valid alternative, as China is a member of the New York Convention of 1958 and enforcement of an arbitral award is in most cases easier and faster than the process of recognition of a foreign court decision.
Daños punitivos – En Italia la Corte de Casación abre la puerta
- Comercio internacional
- Contratos
-
Italia
Null contract of international sale of goods. Which Jurisdiction?
- Derecho internacional
- Contratos
-
Italia
China 
The Protection of Community Design in the European Union
- Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual
- Litigios
-
Europa
Contacta con Christian
Daños punitivos – En Italia la Corte de Casación abre la puerta
6 diciembre 2017
-
Italia
- Comercio internacional
- Contratos
- Derecho internacional
- Litigios
- Reclamación de deudas
Under Italian law, the parties to a contract – both being private legal entities – are generally free to agree upon the court having jurisdiction on any disputes that may arise from such contract.
However, although such clauses are valid, their enforceability can be limited by certain formal requirements, which should be taken into account.
Curiously enough, such requirements are often stricter when both parties are based in Italy, looser when one of them is based abroad, particularly in another EU country.
Nevertheless, considering the current uncertainties in case law, a cautious approach in contract drafting is justifiable in any case.
Exclusive or non exclusive forum?
Let’s consider for example the following clause in a commercial contract between two private companies: «Competent court – The courts of Milan shall be the competent forum on any dispute«.
This clause apparently does not raise any doubts. However, it has recently held by the Italian Supreme Court (“Corte di Cassazione”) to be unenforceable, particularly from the point of view of its non-exclusivity ( Supreme Court Civil Section (Cass. Civ. Sez.) VI-3, order 25.1.2018 n. 1838).
In that case, an Italian company had the other party (another Italian company) sign its general contract terms containing the above mentioned clause. Notwithstanding that, the first company was then served with a payment order (“decreto ingiuntivo”) issued by the Court of Siena, where the second company had started lawsuit despite having approved the forum clause.
The first company was not successful in opposing against the payment order by raising the argument of the lack of jurisdiction of the Siena Court. In fact, it could not enforce the forum clause included in its general contract terms because the clause did not specify that the courts of Milan were the “exclusive” forum.
Therefore, to the opinion of our Supreme Court (actually confirming its own previous case law) in order for that clause to be enforceable as desired, it should have read: “The courts of Milan shall be the exclusively competent forum on any disputes”.
It is noteworthy, though, that the same general contract terms, if signed by a company based in another EU country different from Italy (e.g. France), could have successfully prevented the French company from starting lawsuit in France, even if the forum clause did not specify its exclusivity.
That is because Article 25 of EU Regulation n°1215/2012 expressly states that the “prorogation of jurisdiction” clause “shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise”.
This was also confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court as well (see for example the decision n°3624 of 8.3.2012).
Now, what happens if the contractual partner of the Milan company is a company based in a non-EU country not bound by international treaties on the subject? For example, a U.S. company?
Would the clause “The courts of Milan shall be the competent forum on any dispute” be considered as exclusive or not, from the perspective of an Italian court?
Article 6 of Regulation 1215/2012 should lead the Italian court to interpret that clause as exclusive pursuant to Article 25 of the same Regulation. However, in similar cases in the past, Italian courts have considered such clauses as non-exclusive by applying the domestic rules of private international law (art. 4 of Law 218/95) and interpreting them in line with Article 29, second paragraph, of the Civil Procedure Code (see for example Tribunale of Milan, 11.12.1997). As a consequence, in the case described above, if the U.S. company despite the above clause starts a lawsuit in its country, the decision issued in the U.S. may be recognized in Italy.
The Hague Convention of 30.6.2005 on forum selection agreements should solve the above and other issues, as it states (just like the European Regulation) that the chosen forum is exclusive except for an express agreement on the contrary. However, such Convention at the moment is in force only in a very limited number of countries (European Union, Mexico, Singapore).
In such an uncertain situation, if one wants the chosen forum to be exclusive regardless of where the other party is based, the most prudent approach under Italian law is certainly to specify exclusivity in the clause.
“Special approval” of unfair terms (art. 1341 of the civil code)
Another precondition of enforceability of forum selection clauses under Italian law, is the requirement of “special approval” of such clauses, if included in general contract terms. Pursuant to Article 1341, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, certain types of “unfair” clauses in general contract terms are unenforceable unless “specially approved” in writing. Such “unfair terms” include also arbitral and forum selection clauses, if favorable to the party drafting the general contract terms.
According to the standing jurisprudence of our Supreme Court, such “special approval” in practice occurs by putting a second signature on the contract, which has to be autonomous and separated from the signature that normally is placed to approve the contract in its entirety. Also, such second approval must expressly refer to each single unfair term, by citing number and heading of each such clause.
However, the special approval requirement for the forum choice clauses only applies to contracts between Italian parties, not to international contracts.
In particular, whenever EU Regulation 1215/2012 applies, the less stringent formal requirements set forth by Article art. 25 have to be complied with, even when the forum clause is part of general contract terms. In such a case, it is necessary and sufficient for the contract signed by the parties to include an express reference to the general terms containing the forum clause (see for example Cass. Sez. Un. 6.4.2017 n.8895). In case of general contract terms in a sale contract concluded electronically, a forum choice clause (again under the EU Regulation) can be validly accepted by a “click” (see EUCJ decision n.322 of 21.5.2015).
Even applying the Italian domestic rules in private international law (article 4, Law 218/95) – that is, essentially, in matters involving non-EU (or non-EEA/EFTA) parties – the “special approval” condition is not required for forum selection clauses, because such requirement is not expressly provided for by Article 4, and also by way of interpretation (Constitutional Court 18/10/2000, n. 428).
Notwithstanding the above, however, it has not yet been finally clarified whether or not the “special approval” requirement per Article 1341 of the Civil Code should also apply to international contracts (if governed by Italian laws) as a condition to enforce the other clauses that the law provision considers as “unfair”, such as for example limitation or exclusion of liability clauses.
Therefore, it is still very common in Italy to draft general contract terms, also for international contracts, providing for the other party’s second signature for special approval of the unfair terms.
All this, hoping for the Italian jurisprudence to develop a more modern and international approach in the future.
Con la reciente sentencia 16601/2017, la Corte Suprema – después de diferentes pronunciamientos contrarios – ha abierto la posibilidad de reconocer en Italia las sentencias extranjeras que contengan daños punitivos.
En este breve artículo veremos en qué consisten los daños punitivos, cuáles son las condiciones por las cuales podrían reconocerse y aplicarse en Italia y, sobretodo, qué medidas conviene tomar para afrontar este nuevo riesgo.
Los daños punitivos, en inglés punitive damages, son un instituto jurídico originario de los ordenamientos anglosajones que prevén la posibilidad de reconocer a la parte perjudicada una indemnización adicional respecto a la compensación del daño sufrido, en los casos en los que el causante del daño haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave (“malice” y “gross negligence”, respectivamente).
Con los daños punitivos, además de la función compensatoria, la indemnización del daño también asume una finalidad sancionadora, típica del derecho penal, actuando como elemento de disuasión ante otros potenciales infractores.
En los ordenamientos en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, el reconocimiento y la cuantificación de la indemnización se someten a la discrecionalidad del juez.
En los Estados Unidos de América los daños punitivos se prevén en los principios de common law, pero se disciplinan de modo diverso en cada uno de los Estados. Sin embargo, en general, se aplican siempre que la conducta del causante del daño haya sido dirigida a causar el daño intencionadamente o, se haya llevado a cabo sin tener en cuenta las normas de seguridad preestablecidas. Por lo general, no pueden reconocerse por el incumplimiento de un contrato, salvo que no se determine como un ilícito (tort) autónomo.
En algunos Estados se prevén límites máximos a los daños punitivos, a veces incorporados en los daños compensatorios, otras veces como cuantía máxima. Además, la Corte Suprema de los EEUU ha intervenido en diferentes casos para limitar el importe de condena.
En los ordenamientos de civil law, entre ellos Italia, el instituto de daños punitivos tradicionalmente no se reconoce, ya que la sanción al causante del daño se considera que queda al margen de los principios del derecho civil, basándose en la concepción de que la indemnización por daños tiene como objetivo restaurar la esfera patrimonial del perjudicado.
En consecuencia, el reconocimiento de los daños punitivos en una sentencia, se obstaculizaban por el límite de orden público y tales sentencias no tenían acceso en el espacio jurídico italiano.
La sentencia de las Secciones Unidas núm. 16601/2017, de 5 de julio de 2017 de la Corte Suprema de Casación ha girado las cartas sobre la mesa.
En el presente caso se solicitó a la Corte de Apelación de Venecia el reconocimiento (ex. Art. 64 de la Ley 218/1995) de tres sentencias de la District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida que, admitió una denuncia de garantía interpuesta por un revendedor americano de cascos contra la sociedad productora italiana, por la cual se había condenado a ésta última al pago de 1.436.136,87 USD (además de gastos e intereses) en base al resarcimiento de los daños causas por un defecto del casco utilizado en un accidente de tráfico.
La Corte de Apelación de Venecia reconoció la eficacia de la sentencia del juez extranjero, considerando que el importe era meramente indemnizatorio y no punitivo. La decisión fue recurrida en Casación por la parte condenada, que sostenía la contrariedad al orden publico de la sentencia estadunidense, en base a la orientación jurisprudencial hasta ese momento.
La Casación ha confirmado la decisión de la Corte de Apelación, considerando que el importe no es punitivo y ha declarado el reconocimiento de la sentencia estadunidense en Italia.
Las Secciones Unidas, por su parte, han aprovechado la ocasión para afrontar la cuestión inherente a la admisibilidad de los daños punitivos en Italia, cambiando la orientación histórica de la Corte Suprema (véase Cass. 1781/2012).
Según la Corte, la noción de responsabilidad civil entendida como mera reparación de los daños sufridos, se debe considerar como obsoleta dada la evolución del instituto a través de intervenciones legislativas y jurisprudenciales nacionales y europeas, que han introducido medidas indemnizatorias con finalidad sancionadora y disuasiva. De hecho, en el ordenamiento italiano es posible encontrar diversos casos de indemnización por daños con finalidad sancionadora: en materia de difamación en medios de comunicación (art. 12 L. 47/48), derechos de autor (art. 158 L 633/41), propiedad industrial (art. 125 D. Lgs 30/2005), abuso del proceso (art. 96.3 c.p.c. y art. 26.2 c.p.a.), derecho laboral (art. 18.14 c.p.c.), derecho de familia (art. 709-ter c.p.c.), etc.
De este modo, la Corte de Casación ha introducido el siguiente principio de derecho: “En el vigente ordenamiento italiano, a la responsabilidad civil no solo se le asigna el deber de restaurar la esfera patrimonial del sujeto que ha sufrido la lesión, porque se consideran incluidas en el sistema la función de disuasión y la función sancionadora de la responsabilidad civil. Por tanto, no es ontológicamente incompatible con el ordenamiento italiano el instituto de origen estadunidense de la indemnización punitiva”.
La consecuencia, a tener en muy cuenta, es que el pronunciamiento abre la puerta a posibles deliberaciones de sentencias extranjeras, que condenen a una de las partes al pago de un importe superior respecto al importe calculado para compensar el prejuicio creado a causa de un daño.
Sin embargo, a tal fin, la Corte Suprema ha dispuesto algunas condiciones para que la sentencia extranjera pueda reconocerse. La decisión ha debido ser tomada en el ordenamiento extranjero en base a:
- Garantizar la tipicidad de la condena.
- La previsibilidad de la misma.
- Los límites cuantificativos.
Los posibles efectos de la Sentencia en el ordenamiento italiano
En primer lugar, hay que tener claro que la Sentencia no ha modificado el sistema indemnizatorio interno del ordenamiento italiano. En otras palabras, la Sentencia no permitirá a los jueces italianos condenar por daños punitivos al interno de los procedimientos italianos.
En cambio, por lo que respecta a las sentencias extranjeras, ahora será posible obtener la indemnización por daños punitivos a través del reconocimiento y la ejecución en el sistema italiano de una decisión extranjera que prevea la condena de dicha tipología de daño, con la condición de que se respeten los mencionados presupuestos.
Por todo lo expuesto, las empresas que hayan invertido o que realicen negocios en países en los que se prevén los daños punitivos, tendrán que tener en consideración dicho riesgo.
Los instrumentos para tutelarse
El empresario quien opere en mercados extranjeros en los que se prevén los daños punitivos debe considerar con atención este riesgo.
La óptica debe ser necesariamente de prevención y los instrumentos a disposición son diversos: en primer lugar, la adopción de cláusulas contractuales que prevean la renuncia del perjudicado a este tipo de daño o, que acuerden un límite a la indemnización de los daños contractuales, por ejemplo limitándolos al valor de los productos o a los servicios ofrecidos.
Es además fundamental, que se conozca la legislación y la jurisprudencia de los mercados en los cuales se opera, incluso indirectamente (por ejemplo, con la distribución comercial de los productos) con el fin de escoger de modo consciente la ley aplicable al contrato y la modalidad de resolución de controversias (por ejemplo, con previsión de la exclusiva jurisdiccional del foro del país que no prevea daños punitivos).
Finalmente, este tipo de responsabilidad y riesgo puede ser objeto de valoración con pólizas aseguradoras que ofrecen una cobertura específica respecto a eventuales condenas de indemnización de daños punitivos.
The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).
The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.
In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.
First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.
Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.
The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.
The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.
A crucial clause in international contracts is the one which deals with litigation.
My advice, since we have seen that negotiation can be pretty long, complicated, and, exhausting, is that such clauses should not be the last to be dealt with, often times late at night when parties are exhausted, but the among the first.
Generally parties argue at length on such clauses, because neither party is willing to give up on its national jurisdiction for different reasons, foremost of all the fear that foreign judges would not be impartial and treat with favor the local part.
This deadlock often leads to bad compromises, like choosing the judge of a third state or combining the jurisdiction of one state with the application of the law of the other, which is definitely not recommended.
There is no one-fits-all solution to offer here: the advice is that such clauses should be tailor made on a case by case basis, and that the choice of a state court or arbitration should be expressed taking into account where the final decision shall be enforced.
If we foresee that our client may seek payment of a price or claim damages for breach of contract, ‘where is the money’ or ‘where are the assets’ should be the driving factor, and the choice of jurisdiction should be made accordingly.
If there is no such concern, and litigation may be foreseen only or mostly in a defensive scenario, then the proximity to the money or assets is no more a priority, and other options can be evaluated: in that case, the choice of a Judge in a far away country can be the best option, as it is a strong deterrent for litigation.
When battling for a clause with domestic jurisdiction, however, one should keep in mind that the process of recognition of a foreign decision is generally a rather complicated and lengthy process, even if (as is the case of Italy and China), there is a bilateral treaty for mutual recognition of judicial decisions (but very few cases have been recognized and enforced in China thereafter); it should also be kept in mind that all documents filed with the application for recognition of the foreign decision need to be translated into mandarin, notarized and legalized, which in complex litigations can represent an unforeseen additional high cost.
In other cases, like in the USA, where there is no bilateral treaty in this field, to litigate abroad often means that the foreign decision will be almost useless, with the necessity to sue again in China to seek enforcement of the decision.
Arbitration can be a valid alternative, as China is a member of the New York Convention of 1958 and enforcement of an arbitral award is in most cases easier and faster than the process of recognition of a foreign court decision.
