Acceso usuarios
Milán, Italia
Two recent cases brought in the Court of Justice of the EU lead to meditate about the admissibility of choice of court clauses in favour of a foreign court and choice of law clauses in favour of a foreign law inserted in purely domestic contracts. In the Vinyls case, the Court of Justice has stated that the choice of a foreign law, that is valid according to the Rome I Regulation, is valid also /or purposes of Article 16 of Regulation No 2015/ 848 (European Insolvency Regulation Recast), provided that such choice is not fraudulent or abusive. This solution, that is in line with the previous case-law of the Court, requires that the parties to a domestic contract carefully check the reasons for choosing a foreign law and it excludes that national provisions of law concerning the voidness or voidability of detrimental acts in case of insolvency qualify as mandatory rules under Article 3(3) of the Rome I Regulation. The second case, that will not be decided by the Court since it was repealed by the national judge, concerns the choice of a foreign forum in a domestic contract subject to the ISDA rules, that are widely used in international bµsiness transactions. Some recent judgments of the Court suggest that such choice is apt to qualify a domestic contract as 'international' /or purposes of applying the Brussels I recast Regulation and is valid according to its Article 25.
1. Osservazioni introduttive. - 2. La volontà delle parti come criterio di collegamento nei contratti interni: il caso 'Vinyls'. - 3. La volontà delle parti come criterio di giurisdizione nei contratti interni: il caso 'Santander'
