Italian Jurisdiction in Contracts with Swiss Credit Institutions: Commentary on Order No. 18636 of 2024

The recent Order of the Court of Cassation No. 18636 of July 8, 2024, offers significant food for thought regarding jurisdiction in consumer contracts, particularly when foreign credit institutions are involved. With this decision, the judges reiterated the principle of Italian jurisdiction for contractual liability actions, even when the contract was formally concluded abroad, but the commercial activity was directed towards the Italian market.

Context of the Ruling

The case concerned an Italian consumer who had initiated a liability action against two Swiss credit institutions. Although the investment contracts were formally entered into in Switzerland, the intermediation occurred through individuals operating in Italy, who had induced the consumer to trust the offers of the Swiss bank. The Court, referring to Article 15 of the Lugano Convention of October 30, 2007, established that Italian court jurisdiction exists if the credit institution engaged in public solicitation activities in Italy.

A contractual liability action brought by a consumer domiciled in Italy against a Swiss credit institution falls within the jurisdiction of the Italian judge – by virtue of the "direction of activity" criterion, as per Article 15, paragraph 1, letter c, of the Lugano Convention of October 30, 2007 (ratified by the EU by Council Decision of November 27, 2008, and entered into force in relations with the Swiss Confederation on January 1, 2011) – when said institution has engaged in public solicitation activities through individuals who present themselves as its agents or intermediaries or who, belonging to the same group or otherwise linked to it, have in any case induced a public reliance regarding the attribution of their actions to the unified center of interests of the same bank.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This decision has several important implications for consumers and for operators in the banking sector:

• Reliability of Institutions: Consumers can consider transactions with credit institutions that conduct marketing and intermediation activities on Italian territory as more secure.
• Favorable Jurisdiction: Italian consumers have the opportunity to assert their rights before Italian judges, simplifying the compensation process in case of disputes.
• Regulatory Clarity: The ruling contributes to clarifying the boundaries of jurisdiction between different states, in a context of increasing internationalization of banking services.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 18636 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the protection of Italian consumers in their dealings with foreign credit institutions. It underscores the importance of the direction of commercial activity and strengthens the consumer's position in an increasingly globalized market. It is crucial for consumers to be informed about their rights and available protection mechanisms to best address any issues related to contracts entered into with foreign credit institutions.