Summary
Pursuant to Articles 2 and 6 No 1 and to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Italian courts have jurisdiction over an action for pre-contractual liability arising from the breach by intermediaries of their information duties vis-a` -vis their clients, which has been brought by the Municipality of Milan – jointly with an action for contractual liability – against various intermediaries having their seat in Italy, in certain other Member States of the European Union and in the United States of America, respectively. In fact, the place where the harmful event occurred is located in Italy and, if a plaintiff brings a main claim and a concurrent claim against a foreign defendant, the existence of jurisdiction shall be verified with exclusive reference to the main claim. Pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Italian courts have jurisdiction over the concurrent action for liability arising from a consultancy and arranging agreement entered into with some of the aforesaid defendants, which is governed by general terms and conditions that have been executed by the parties and contain a clause conferring jurisdiction to Italian courts. The clause conferring jurisdiction to English courts set out in Article 13 of the ISDA Master Agreement, which governs a derivative agreement allegedly linked with the aforesaid consultancy agreement, is irrelevant since the wording ‘‘relating to this Agreement’’ contained in said clause – which shall be interpreted in a rigorously restrictive manner – cannot be construed as referring to all contractual and non-contractual disputes that are in any way linked to the contractual adoption of derivative instruments, and also since the effects of the alleged contractual link do not concern the question of jurisdiction.