Search for cases
CISG-online number
6907
Case name
Digital operating system for boats case
Jurisdiction
Italy
Court
Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court)
Chamber
Sezioni Unite (Joint Chambers)
Judges
Dott. Pasquale d'Ascola (Presiding Judge), Guido Mercolino (Reporting judge)
Date of decision
28 February 2024
Case nr./docket nr.
5303/2024
Claimant 1
Respondent 1
Case History
Seller 1
Buyer 1
Category of goods
77: Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, not elsewhere specified, and electrical parts thereof (including non- electrical counterparts, not elsewhere specified, of electrical household-type equipment)
Goods as per contract
Digital operating system and operator panels for installation on boats of a newly-developed model
(Domestic) law applied in addition
EU Brussels I Regulation No. 44/2001
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 57
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Jurisdiction of the courts at the place of performance of obligations arising from a CISG contract under the 1968 Brussels Convention; Jurisdiction of the courts at the place of performance of obligations arising from a CISG contract under the EU 'Brussels I' Regulation 44/2001
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 2
Full text of decision 1
by Ulrich G. Schroeter
The present appellate decision by the Italian Supreme Court exclusively addresses the jurisdiction of the Italian courts over a claim brought by an Italian seller (Claimant) against a Turkish buyer (Respondent).
As the first decision by the District Court of Rome in the pending case had already been rendered in 2011 (with the claim having been filed even earlier), the Supreme Court for reasons of temporal applicability applies Art. 5 No. 1 of the EU’s Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation) in order to determine the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of performance of the obligation in question, and not the more recent successor instrument (the Brussels Regulation (Recast) No. 1215/2012).
In this context, the Supreme Court points out that Art. 57 CISG has no role to play in determining the place of performance under Art. 5 No. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation, insofar reversing the decision by the Court of Appeal Rome (which had relied on Art. 5 No. 1 of the 1968 Brussels Convention instead). The Supreme Court eventually denies the jurisdiction of the Italian courts over the claim and dismisses the case.