nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Italy

verfasst von : Aldo Frignani

Erschienen in: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The implementation of the New York Convention in Italy greatly facilitated the recognition and enforcement of international awards in Italy, as well as ensured the effectiveness of arbitration agreements. Particular attention however is paid to the difficulty associated with pathological arbitration clauses. On the whole, Italian judges pay a fair degree of deference to both the letter and the spirit of the Convention, resulting in a constructive application of the regime.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Israel

Nächstes Kapitel Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Japan

These rules were already introduced by law n.25 of January 5, 1994 and remained untouched in the last reform of February 2, 2006. For more information see the survey of Tampieri, in: Benedettelli, Consolo, Radicati Di Brozolo (ed) Commentario breve al diritto dell’arbitrato nazionale ed internazionale (Padova, 2010) 1111 and seq.; Bernardini “Riconoscimento ed esecuzione dei lodi stranieri in Italia”, in (2010) Riv. Arb. 429 and seq.

A broader description of these two steps can be found in Bernardini, Perrini, “New York Convention of June 10, 1958: the Application of Article V by the Courts in Italy” (2008) Journal of International Arbitration 707.

Cass. October 18, 1990, n.10151, GRI v Pik Verhovec in (1990) Repertorio Foro it., n.31.

See Bove, “Il riconoscimento del lodo straniero tra Convenzione di New York e codice di procedura civile” (2006) Riv. Arb. 25.

For a thorough discussion of this issue see Frignani L’arbitrato commerciale internazionale (Padova 2004), 176-178.

Trib. Milan, January 8, 1990, Donati v SAIMA, in (1991) Foro padano 169; also in (1992) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, 539.

The reported cases are not so numerous and in some of them the judges made a joint application of both Geneva and New York Convention, thus underlying that they contain the same principles: Cass. October 16, 1985, n.5071, Cifuindus v OFAG, in Giur. It., 1986, I, 1, 1341 (tacit acceptation of the court jurisdiction if the existence of and the exception of arbitral agreement is not raised in the first defense); Pret. Padova May, 12, 1986, Sordina v Blank Metallwarenfabrik, in (1987) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 121; Cass. August 8, 1990, n.7995, Vento v E.D.F. Man Coffee, in (1991) Riv. Arb. 287, comment Giardina, “L’inapplicabilità ai lodi arbitrali stranieri dell’istituto della revisione del merito”; Cass. sez. un. (United chambers) October 15, 1992, n.11261, Agrò v Ro Koproduct oour Produktiva, in (1992) Foro It. I, 3283; Cass. sez. un., March 10, 2000, n.58, Krauss Maffei v Bristol Myers Squibb, in (2002) Dir.maritt., 191; Trib. Torino, December 10, 2007, G & C SpA v GETVS.

Biavati, in: Carpi (ed) Arbitrato. Commentario (2nd ed, Bologna 2008) 904.

So Cass. Sez.un. October 16, 1985, n.5071, Cifuindus v OFAG, in (1986) Rass. Arb. 101; also in (1986) Giur. It. I, 1, 1341.

Ibidem. See also Cass Sez. Un., January 12, 1982, n.124 Siaga v .Fall.Colombi, in (1982) Rass. Arb. 166.

This issue formed the object of a more extensive comparative study that I published some years ago: FRIGNANI, “Drafting an Arbitration Agreement”, in (2008) 24 Arbitration International, 561.

To borrow Friedland’s denomination, “Sole option or asymmetrical clauses” in Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts (Huntington 2001) at 10.11.

Cass. civ, October 10, 1960, Chiappinelli v RESSA, in Giust. Civ, 1960, I, 1897; Cass. civ, October 22, 1970, Astengo v Comune di Genova in (1970) Giur. It. 846.

App. Milano, July 2, 1999, Tema-Frugoli v Hubei Space Quarry Industry, in (2000) Riv. Arb. 753, comment by Muroni.

This case is referred to by Azzali and Roncarolo, Risoluzione delle controversie e arbitrato in I contratti di acquisizione di società ed aziende (Milano 2007) 663.

Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato (AIA) award no. 41/92 of 1993, in (1997) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 178. For another example, in a recent contract between an Italian company and a Turkish one the parties wrote that disputes should be resolved referring to a “Committee for Settlement of Commercial Disputes in Italy”: which does not exist at all, thus rendering the clause totally inoperative.

Tennessee Imp. v Filippi, 745 F.Suppl. 1314 (M.D. Tenn. 1990), in (1992) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 620.

In a case decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, 16 April 1984, in (1986) Rev. Arb. 596, the parties designated as appointing authority the Director General of the World Health Organization, who refused to act. The judges upheld the appointment made by the ICC, but the decision is erroneous, being too far from the clause as drafted by the parties.

Cass. July 13, 1988, n.4592, Mereghetti v Topfer, in (1989) Giur. It., I, 1, 690 comment by Franchi; Cass. January 21, 2000, n.671 De Maio v Interskins, in (2002) European Legal Forum 51.

N.6349 in (2003) Gius. 1957; and (2004) Arch. Civ. 227.

Bove, “Il riconoscimento del lodo straniero tra Convenzione di New York e codice di procedura civile” in (2006) Riv. Arb. 39.

Cass. April 23, 1997, n. 10,229, Dalmine v Sheet Metal Forming Machinery, in (1998) Riv. Arb. 41, comment of Pietrangeli, 45; also in (1999) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 709.

All subsequent cases follow this principle.

On this specific issue Berlinguer, “Capacità delle parti e rispetto del contradditorio come condizione al riconoscimento del lodo straniero in Italia” in (1999) Foro it. I, 293 and seq; Frignani, above n 5, 255.

See the survey provided by Bove, above n 31, 40 and seq.

Cass. June 14, 2007 n.13916, Rudston Products v Buongiorno, in (2007) CED Cassazione.

Albeit as an obiter dictum: Cass October 28, 1993, n.10704 Robobar v Finncold in (1995) Foro It. I, 942; also in (1995) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 739.

Cassation, January 25, 1991, n.116, Marc Rich A.G. v Italimpianti, in (1992) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 554.

In the same line, see Cass. (united Chambers) March 10, 2000, n. 58, Krauss Maffei v Bristol Meyrs Squibb, in (2000) Foro It., 2226; also (2000) Giust. Civ. I, 3203, comment Simone: the arbitral clause was contained in the documents sent by the foreign vendor, but never mentioned in the document by which the Italian purchaser accepted the offer.

Cass. October 28, 1993, n.10704, Robobar v Finncold, in (1995) Foro it. I, 942, comment Roscioni: the arbitral agreement was contained in the orders sent by the purchaser, orders which had never been accepted by the vendor either by letter or telegram.

Cass. January 20, 1977, n.272, in (1979) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 279.

Cass. April 15, 1980, n.2448, in (1981) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 233. The Supreme Court upheld an elaborated decision of the Court of Appeal of Florence September 1, 1977 in (1978) Rass. Arb. 161-168; in that case an American purchaser sent various purchase orders with standard terms including an arbitration agreement; the Italian vendor did not return them signed, but in the various bills accompanying the shipment of the goods a reference to the specific orders containing the arbitration clause was made. The appellate judges held an agreement to arbitrate was reached in writing.

May 19, 2009, n.11529, in (2010) Ric. Dir. Int privproc. 443.

Among many, see Cass. December 13, 1971, n.3620, Miserocchi v Agnesi, in (1972) Foro it., I, 616; also in (1976) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 190; Cass. April 22, 1976, n.1439 Raina and other v Seagull, in (1976) Foro it. 1495; also in (1977) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 249; Cass September 18, 1978, n.4167, Butera v Pagnan, in (1979) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 296; Cass (united Chambers) December 20, 1983, n.7497, UIP and Alhimez v EPCHAP, in (1984) Foro it. I, 1319 (comment Di Virgilio); App.Milano, May 3, 1977, Renault Jacquinet v SICEA in (1979) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 284; App. Brescia, December 27, 1980, Société Italo-Belge v IGOR, in (1983) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 383.

Art 2, “No derogation of jurisdiction by agreement”, read:

“Jurisdiction of Italian judges cannot be derogated by agreement in favor of a foreign jurisdiction nor of arbitrators who decide abroad, except if the dispute refers to obligations between foreigners or between a foreigner and a citizen not resident nor domiciled in Italy and the derogation is in writing.”

The aim of the new rule was to overcome the dominant case law refusing to admit the relatio imperfecta.

N.14860, in (2001) Riv. Dir. Int. privproc. 693; the arbitration clause referred to was contained in the regulation approved and published by ICHSLTA --Consiglio internazionale delle Associazioni dei commercianti di pelle (International Council of Leather Traders Associations); also in (2001) Contratti 329.

In (2012) Riv. Arb. 835. Although this judgment was rendered in 2011, the agreement in question was signed long before and the motion for recognition introduced before the Court of Appeal of Bari in 2002, thus falling under the umbrella of the law of 1994.

The whole Art 833 was abrogated. Its §1 said that the arbitration clause contained in standard contracts did not need a specific acceptance.

On this issue see Graffi, “International Arbitration Agreements by Reference: A European Perspective”, in (2005) Gazette du Palais 22; Milanese M., “Clausola compromissoria e validità del rinvio per relationem” in (2001) Dir. comm. intern. 1099 and seq; Gianalberto, “Clausola compromissoria: poteri del rappresentante e validità del rinvio per relationem” in (2009)Contratti 885. More recently, Biagioni G., “La Corte di Cassazione torna ad occuparsi del richiamo della clausola compromissoria per relationem imperfectam” in (2012) Riv. Arb. 837.

On this issue see Bove, above n 4, 42.

Frignani, above at n 5, 258, offers these hypothetical examples: lack of communication of the names of the arbitrators; lack of communication of all documents docketed before the arbitral tribunal. In a case of domestic arbitration the fact that the arbitral tribunal based its decision on a document which was not subjected to examination by the other party (“contradditorio”) triggered the nullity of the award: Trib. Torino, April 13, 1987, SAI v Cabassi, in (1987) Rass, Arb. 23.

Cass. January 27, 1986, n.522, in (1986) Rass. Arb.216.

October 17, 1980, n.5378, in (1981) Foro It. 1142.

Cass. April 3, 1987, n.3221, in (1988) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 714.

See Casillo, above at n 50.

Cass. May 30, 2006, n,12,863, in (2007) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 406.

App. Catanzaro, January 13, 1997, in (1998) Riv. Dir.Int. priv. proc. 800, at 809.

App. Lecce, March 21, 1998, in (1998) Dir. Maritt. 1147.

See above at n 32.

See Berlinguer, “Capacità dellle parti e rispetto del contradditorio come condizioni al riconoscimento del lodo straniero in Italia” in (1999) Foro It. I, 293.

See above at n 14.

Bove, above at n 4, 44.

Cass. July 28, 1998, n.7398, in (1999) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 319.

Cass. November 10, 1992, n.12093, in (1993) Giur. It. I, 1, 1934.

App. Milan, January 27, 1995, in (1995) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 742, comment Vismara.

App. Trento, January 14, 1981, in (1983) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 386.

Cass. June 7, 1995, n.6426, in (1996) Giur. It. I, 1, 984; also in (1997) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 727.

App. Firenze, April 13, 1978, in (1979) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 294.

Cass. February 7, 2001, n.1732, in (2001) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 443; also in (2007) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 390.

Cass. February 8, 1982, n.722, in (1982) Foro it. I, 2285. In that case, Art 8(b) of the Geneva Convention of 1961 was applied.

See above at n 14.

Cass. February 19, 2000, n.1905, In (2000) Corriere Giur. 11, 149, comment Ruffini.

The opposite view is held by Bove, above at n 4, 49, footnote 77, but I do not share his conclusions.

See above at n 66.

Cass. November 3, 1992, n.11891, in (1993) Foro It. I, 112. Other precedents in conformity: Cass. June 7, 1995, n.6426, Wtb Tosti Baswas; App. Catanzaro, January 13, 1997 Fertilcalabria v Viatra.

Such a requirement, which existed under the Geneva Convention of 1927, has disappeared in the New York Convention.

Bernardini, L’arbitrato nel commercio e negli investimenti internazionali (2nd ed, Milano 2008) 239; Bernardini, Perrini, above at n 2, 709.

See for example Giardina, “The International Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Nullified in the Country of Origin”, in Liber Amicorum Boeckstiegel (Köln 2000) 205; also in (2001) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 265.

On this issue see Colandra, “Gli effetti delle misure di embargo sull”arbitrabilità della controversia nell”arbitrato commerciale internazionale”, in (2005) Giur. It. 122.

Cass. February 27, 1985, n.1714.

Art.1343 Unlawful causa: “The causa is unlawful when it is contrary to mandatory rules, public policy, or morals.” (The definition of the notion of “causa” is not given by the legislator, but it can be understood as “the useful social or economic function” of the contract). Art.1418 Causes of nullity of contract: “a contract that is contrary to mandatory rules is void, unless the law provides otherwise.”

App. Milano, December 14, 1992, in (1994) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 873; also in (1997) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 725.

See above at n 14.

On this issue see the authors Bove, above at n 4, 32; Tampieri, above at n 1, 1054.

Cass. January 19, 2007, n.1183, in (2007) Foro. it. 1460, comment Ponzanelli, “Danni punitivi: no grazie”). See also on this point other scholars: Saravalle, “I ‘punitive damages’ nelle sentenze delle corti europee e dei tribunali arbitrali” in (1993) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 867; Radicati di Brozolo “Arbitrage commercial international et lois de police : Autonomie de la volonté et conflits de jurisdiction” in : The Hague Recueil des cours, volume 315 (Nijhoff Leiden 2005), 269.

Cass February 8, 2012, n.1781, in (2013) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 134.

For more details see Ponzanelli “I danni punitivi”, in (2008) Nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata 28; Castagno N., “International Commercial Arbitration and Punitive Damages”, in (2011) Arbitraje 729.

Cass. March 10, 1999, n.2064.

Cass. February 8, 1982, n.722.

App. Genoa, May 2, 1980. Reference was made to the typical English law institute of “umpire” which in the legal culture of other jurisdictions may affect the notion of impartiality. On this issue, from an Italian law perspective, Zuffi, “Peculiarità inglesi in tema di composizione dell’ organo arbitrale (specie se integrato da un umpire) e riconoscimento dei lodi” in (2005) Int’l Lis I, 33.

Cass. December 6, 2002, n.17349, in (2003) Gius. 696.

So Bove, above at n 4, 27.

November 12, 2012, in (2013) Riv. Arb. 423, comment by Zulberti.

Punzi, Disegno sistematico dell’arbitrato (Padova 2000) II, 339 and seq.

Zucconi Galli Fonseca “L’esecutorietà del lodo arbitrale straniero in pendenza di opposizione” in (1997) Riv. Arb. 347; Luzzatto “L’arbitrato internazionale e i lodi stanieri nella nuova disciplina legislativa italiana”, in (1994) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 278; the relevant case law is quoted by Roversi “Aspetti processuali della disciplina sulla delibazione dei lodi esteri” in (1999) Riv. Arb. 157.

App. Milan, December 12, 2006, in (2007) Foro It. 2243. The scholarship is however split on this issue: see the debate in Braggion at n 108.

App. Genova June 21, 2006, in (2008) Dir. comm. int. 683, comment Braggion “Sulla possibilità di concedere la provvisoria esecuzione al lodo arbitrale straniero in pendenza di giudizio di opposizione”, who is in favor of the first opinion.)

March 24, 1998, in (1999) Giur. It. I, 2, 533.

Tampieri, above at n 1, 1022.

N.4706, in (1988) Riv. Dir. int. priv. proc. 529.

In (1994) Rass. Arb. 305.

In (2000) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 172.

Cass. May 4, 1998, n.441, Booth v Conceria De Maio in (1999) Riv. Dir. Int. priv. proc. 277.

Among many see Rubino Sammartano International Arbitration Law (2nd ed, Kluwer Law International 2001) 976-984; Frignani L’arbitrato commerciale internazionale (Cedam 2004) 283-287.

A Frignani, L’arbitrato commerciale internazionale (Cedam, Padova 2004), pp. 378.

A Frignani, Il contratto internazionale. Diritto comparato e prassi commerciale (Cedam, Padova 2010), pp. VII-1010 (in cooperation with M. Torsello).

Titel: Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Italy
verfasst von: Aldo Frignani
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50913-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-50915-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_21

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"