Acceso usuarios
Stefania Bariatti
Since 2012 the ltalian legislature has adopted several statutes aimed at reducing the costs and enhancing the efficiency of the judiciary also through the reduction of the number of courts competent to hear cases where one of the parties is a company having its seat abroad. The latest version of such provisions has been adopted with Decree-Law n. 145 of 2013, that centralises these cases at eleven courts. This approach has been taken by other Member States in several fields, mainly invoking the goal of increasing consistency and uniformity of judgments and the specialisation of judges to the benefit of all parties.
These provisions raise significant questions of compliance with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and they do not seem to attain the goal of uniformity since they provide a double track for purely internal vs cross-border cases. But they appear to be also contrary to some provisions of the Brussels la regulation, in particular where the regulation directly designates the competent court within a Member State. Hence the question of whether EU law establishes any limits to the power of the Member States to determine the territorial extension of the competence of national courts. The Court of justice has provided some guidance on these issues in Sanders and Bradbrooke, where the protection of a maintenance creditor and of a minor were at stake. According to the Court, national legislatures should assure the effet utile of EU provisions, while at the same time ensure effective proceedings in cross-border situations, preserve the interests of the weaker party and promote the proper administration of justice.
Within the "Brussels I system" such guidance may apply in cases where the position of the parties is unbalanced and the regulation provides special fora in favour of the weaker party that are based upon proximity. Yet, one may ask whether the solution may differ according to the subject matter of the dispute. Moreover, the fact that the ltalian legislature has declared that the fora established under Decree-Lato n. 145 of 2013 may not be derogated raises the further issue of their compatibility with Article 25 of the Brussels Ia regulation.
1. Osservazioni introduttive. - 2. L'art. 80 del «decreto del Fare». - 3. Segue: i motivi di contrasto con il regolamento Bruxelles I. - 4. L'art. 10 del decreto «Destinazione Italia». - 5. Segue: i motivi di contrasto con alcune disposizioni del regolamento Bruxelles I. - 6. I principi del sistema «Bruxelles I»: la sentenza Sanders della Corte di giustizia. - 7. Segue: la sentenza Bradbrooke della Corte di giustizia e le conclusioni dell'avvocato generale nel caso A. - 8. Considerazioni conclusive.
