Case number and/or case name
ITT20140918 Cass. (Plenary Session), order n. 19675/2014 (BI)
Summary
Under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001of 22 December 2000, Italian courts have jurisdiction over an action for the non-contractual liability in matters of financial intermediation for the violation of the duties to inform a client and to execute properly the operations brought by an Italian municipality against an Irish bank and an Italian company.
Because under Article 60 of the Regulation one of the defendants is a company domiciled in Italy, Italian courts have jurisdiction under Article 2 of the same Regulation over the action for contractual liability against the same parties with respect to an investment advisory relationship performed with wilful misconduct or gross negligence on the grounds that the risk profiles were not sufficiently illustrated to the plaintiff. Italian courts have jurisdiction over the same claim also under Article 6(1) of the same Regulation given that the fact that the defendants have cooperated in creating the harmful event satisfies the requirement that the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. In the same subject matter, Italian courts also have jurisdiction under Article 5(1)(b) of the Regulation because the advisory relationship may be construed as a contract for the provision of services, and under this contract such services were or should have been provided in Italy. Under Article 23 of the Regulation, the jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts provided at Article 13 of the ISDA Master Agreement, which regulates the ensuing contracts entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant Irish bank, is irrelevant given that such clause concerns only the disputes “relating to this Agreement” and shall be narrowly construed by the court.