Search for cases

CISG-online number
7329
Case name
Noush Ab Darb Tabriz Industries Co. v. S.I.P.A. S.p.A.
Jurisdiction
Italy
Court
Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court)
Judges
Mario Bertuzzi (Presiding Judge), Vincenzo Picaro (Reporting judge)
Date of decision
26 February 2025
Case nr./docket nr.
7003/2020 / 5067/2025
Claimant 1
Name
Noush Ab Darb Tabriz Industries Co.
Place of business
Iran
Role in transaction
Buyer
Respondent 1
Name
Società Industrializzazione Progettazione e Automazione S.p.A. (S.I.P.A.)
Place of business
Italy
Role in transaction
Seller
Case History
Noush Ab Darb Tabriz Industries Co. v. S.I.P.A. S.p.A.
Tribunale di Treviso (District Court Treviso)
Italy, 2018 – 468/2018, CISG-online 7155
granting claim
Noush Ab Darb Tabriz Industries Co. v. S.I.P.A. S.p.A.
Corte di Appello di Venezia (Court of Appeal Venice)
Italy, 22 November 2019 – 5295/2019, CISG-online 7236
reversing
Present decision affirming
Seller 1
Name
Società Industrializzazione Progettazione e Automazione S.p.A. (S.I.P.A.)
Place of business
Italy
Buyer 1
Name
Noush Ab Darb Tabriz Industries Co.
Place of business
Iran
Category of goods
72: Machinery specialized for particular industries
Goods as per contract
Machine for manufacturing plastic caps
(Domestic) law applied in addition
Italian law
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 39(2); Art. 47; Art. 49
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Limitation (prescription) period for claim arising under CISG contract
Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter

The dispute underlying the present decision had arisen from the purchase of a machine by an Iranian buyer (Claimant) from an Italian manufacturer (Respondent). After the machine had allegedly shown defects and the seller had been unsuccessful in trying to repair them, the buyer brought a claim in the Italian courts, seeing the machine's removal from Iran and the restitution of the contract price by the seller.

In the Court of Appeal Venice, the seller had successfully relied on the one-year limitation (prescription) period in Art. 1495 of the Italian Civil Code, which had already passed; the buyer's claim had therefore been dismissed. Affirming the Court of Appeal's decision, the Italian Supreme Court did not take any position regarding the controversial question whether Art. 1495 of the Italian Civil Code is preempted in CISG cases by the two-year cut-off period in Art. 39(2) CISG. In line with the Court of Appeal's decision, it left the question open because five years had already passed since the machine's delivery in the present case, so that both periods had in any case passed.

Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision