The second issue of 2025 of RDIPP (CEDAM, Wolter Kluwer) has been published and will be available soon, for its subscribers, at Edicola professionale (https://www.edicolaprofessionale.com/). It features one article, two comments, 12 judgments from Italian Courts, 12 annotated summary of EU judgments, several documents and news and one book review.
The Cases in Italian Courts section features judgments on the following topics: arbitration; civil proceedings; contracts; European Union law; jurisdiction; public policy; recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and administrative acts; and treaties and general international rules. Please note that the English Index contains the annotated summary of each published decision.
Similarly, EU case law features annotated summary of judgments addressing both private international and procedural matters, as well as judgments on other topics, in which, nevertheless, the Court’s reasoning has an impact of those matters, including all the paragraphs that may be relevant in that respect.
Article’s summary:
Prof. Francesco Pesce (Associate Professor, University of Genoa), Il riconoscimento delle decisioni straniere in materia civile tra previsioni sulla competenza funzionale del giudice interno e comunicazioni alla Commissione europea (Recognition of Foreign Decisions in Civil Matters between Provisions on the Functional Jurisdiction of National Courts and Communications to the European Commission) [in Italian].
The implementation of the Regulations adopted by the EU in the context of so-called civil judicial cooperation has assumed an increasing importance over the last twenty years, due to the progressive expansion of the areas of intervention of the legislator of the European Union. Nonetheless, some of the repercussions of such uniform legislation do not seem to have been appropriately reversed, by the Italian national legislator, into the code of civil procedure and into the other special provisions aimed at ruling civil proceedings. With regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, it appears that notwithstanding the ever more pressing need to address the matter in a complete and organic manner, a situation of inertia has prevailed in the Italian legal system, moving from the idea that, where compatible with the new EU Regulations, the domestic procedural rules could also be adapted to the intra-European circulation of judgments. This has resulted in a rather fragmentary and incomplete internal regulatory framework of civil procedure, so affecting the principle of legal certainty due to the lack of specific provisions aimed at implementing the EU discipline dedicated to the free movement of decisions. Moreover, the EU Regulations here considered require that each country informs the Commission, by means of a formal communication, of the internal procedures that may be relevant in the application of the uniform discipline (with particular reference to the competent national authorities and to the specific applicable procedures): in this regard – even after the 2022 ‘Cartabia’ reform of civil procedure – it seems that the content of the Italian communications is, in some cases, not only devoid of an adequate legislative basis of reference from the point of view of the national system, but even unreasonable and incoherent if observed in a systemic perspective.
Comments’ summary:
Dr. Curzio Fossati (Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Cagliari), L’incidenza dell’obbligo di riconoscimento dello status filiationis nell’Unione europea sugli ordinamenti nazionali (The Impact on National Legal Systems of the Obligation to Recognise Filiation Status within the European Union) [in Italian]
This article examines whether each Member State of the European Union is obliged to recognise the filiation established in another Member State. Noting the current lack of uniform private international law rules on filiation, the paper considers some examples of conflict-of-laws rules in force in the Member States and highlights the main differences between them. It then analyses the case-law of the Court of Justice on the circulation of personal and family status between Member States in order to examine the scope and basis of the Court’s obligation for Member States to recognise such status. The aim of this work is to show that the solution adopted by the Court of Justice is only partially able to resolve the problematic aspects of the current private international law regulation of filiation, highlighting persistent uncertainties and critical issues.
Dr. Kevin Silvestri (Ph.D.), La legge regolatrice degli effetti dell’apertura di procedure di insolvenza sui processi su crediti pendenti all’estero (The Law Governing the Effects of the Opening of Insolvency Proceedings on Proceedings Concerning Claims Pending Abroad) [in Italian]:
This paper delves into a specific aspect of the broader challenge of cross-border insolvency proceedings: determining which law governs the impact of opening insolvency proceedings in one State on creditors’ claims-related lawsuits pending in another. This is a particularly delicate issue for a few reasons. On one hand, the effects of insolvency proceedings on ongoing creditors’ lawsuits are a critical component of how liabilities of the estate are ascertained under the lex fori concursus. This includes, crucially, how the proof of claims process coordinates with any pending lawsuits involving the debtor. On the other hand, according to the principle lex fori regit processum, the rules governing these lawsuits differ from those governing the insolvency proceedings themselves, especially when the lawsuits are pending in a different country. This work highlights the potential conflict between these opposing principles. It also examines the problems that can arise when the legal systems involved have different ways of coordinating proof of claim with creditors’ lawsuits. The paper then focuses on the differing interpretations of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848. This article aims to identify the applicable law in these situations. Legal scholars have proposed various interpretations precisely because of the complexities introduced by differences among European leges concursus regarding the fate of creditors’ lawsuits pending when insolvency proceedings commence.
Finally, this issue features the following book review by Dr. Lenka Válková (Researcher, University of Milan): G. van Calster, European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU, Cambridge, Hart Publishing, 4th ed., 2024, p. 1-468.
The issue’s Index, both in Italian and in English, is available here.