A few weeks ago (18 February 2025), the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) delivered its order No 4124/2025.
The case involves an Italian resident (A.A.) who invested inherited money in 2012 through two companies: Novium AG (domiciled, with its seat, in Switzerland) and Hansard International Limited (domiciled, with its seat, in the Isle of Man). A.A. entered into a fiduciary mandate with Novium, which then concluded a unit-linked life insurance contract with Hansard on her behalf. In 2014, the fiduciary ownership was transferred to Global Business Solutions Bahamas Ltd., but A.A. later revoked the fiduciary mandate. Upon attempting to redeem the policy, she discovered her entire investment of €584,137.25 had been lost.
A.A. filed a lawsuit in the Tribunal of Bergamo (Italy) against both companies, which challenged the jurisdiction of the Italian courts. Pending the first instance proceedings, A.A. filed a reference for a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction.
The Italian Supreme Court determined that Italian courts have jurisdiction over both defendants.
Regarding Novium AG, the Court found that the relationship with A.A. has to be characterised as a consumer contract “both because there is not the slightest indication to the contrary, and because it is difficult to imagine how an investment contract involving an individual’s savings, or a life insurance policy on one’s own life, could serve the purposes of running a business” (point 1). Therefore, Art 15(1)(c) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, done at Lugano on 30 October 2007 (the 2007 Lugano Convention), applies, giving jurisdiction to courts where the consumer resides if the professional’s activities are “directed by any means” toward that state. Regarding the targeting, the Court found that “the existence, in Italy, of a significant number of clients of the defendant professional is in itself an indication of an ʻactivity directedʼ toward our country… This evidence exists in the present case and is represented by the ongoing litigation between Novium and investors residing in Italy” (point 1.5.).
Regarding Hansard, Italian jurisdiction over defendants in third countries is governed by Art 3 of Law 31 May 1995 No 218, which references the 1968 Brussels Convention, replaced by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, first, and Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, now. Under Art 11(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, an insurer may be sued in the state where the beneficiary is domiciled: A.A., as the beneficiary residing in Italy, can therefore bring her claim before Italian courts.
The text of the order is available here.
On the topics addressed in the order, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Stefania Bariatti, 1989, No 3, 529 ff.;
Fausto Pocar, 2011, No 3, 591 ff.;
Fausto Pocar, 2011, No 3, 628 ff.;
Alberto Malatesta, 2021, No 4, 878 ff.;
Anna Liebman, 2024, No 2, 460 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Fausto Pocar (ed.), Book No 67.