Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Italy: Proof and Information about Foreign Law in Italy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Treatment of Foreign Law - Dynamics towards Convergence?

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 26))

  • 641 Accesses

Abstract

This Report was prepared with regard to cross-border cases where foreign law is determined as the applicable law by the Italian PIL statute. Attention is given not only to the Italian PIL Statute of 1995, but also to the former Italian PIL system, with a focus on its Italian literature and application in case law. In particular, the Report analyses a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, of May 26, 2014, which highlights the binding force of the Italian PIL rules and which has wide implications on the state of art of pleading and proofing of foreign laws in Italy.

The methodological premise and paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 were written by Nerina Boschiero. The remainder of the paper was written by Benedetta Ubertazzi.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218. Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, in Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 128 of 3 June 1995.

  2. 2.

    See Sections 16 to 31 of the general legal provisions of the Civil Code, which were abrogated by the Italian PIL Statute, except for Art. 16 on which see para 1.3.

  3. 3.

    F. Pocar, L’assistenza giudiziaria internazionale in materia civile, Padova, 1967, p. 209; N. Boschiero, Norme di diritto internazionale privato “facoltative”?, in Riv. dir. int. priv. e proc. (hereinafter: RDIPP) 1993, p. 573.

  4. 4.

    See Corte Cass., 16.71954 n. 2539, in Foro Italiano 1955, I, p. 33 ff.

  5. 5.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. In OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, pp. 6 ff. For Italian literature on this Regulation see P. Franzina (Ed.), La legge applicabile ai contratti nella proposta di regolamento “Roma I”, Atti della giornata di studi – Rovigo, 31 marzo 2006, Cedam, Padova, 2006, pp. 180; B. Ubertazzi, Il regolamento Roma I sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali, Giuffré, Milano, 2008, pp. 207; F. Salerno and P. Franzina (eds.), Regolamento (CE) n. 593/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 17 giugno 2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (“Roma I”) – Commentario, in Le nuove leggi civili commentate, 2009, pp. 521–954; N. Boschiero (Ed.), La nuova disciplina comunitaria della legge applicabile ai contratti (Roma I), Giappichelli, Torino, 2009, pp. XVI–548.

  6. 6.

    Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. In OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, pp. 40 ff. For Italian literature on this Regulation see P. Franzina, Il regolamento n. 864/2007/CE sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni extracontrattuali (“Roma II”), in Le nuove leggi civili commentate 2008, pp. 971–1044; C. Honorati, Regolamento n. 864/2007 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni non contrattuali, in F. Preite and A. Gazzanti Pugliese (Eds.), Atti notarili. Diritto comunitario e internazionale, Utet, Torino, 2011, pp. 483–558.

  7. 7.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. In OJ L 343, 29.12.2010, pp. 10 ff. For Italian literature on this Regulation see P. Franzina, The Law Applicable to Divorce and Legal Separation under Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010, in Cuadernos de derecho transnacional 2011, 2, pp. 85–129; Id. (ed.), Regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010 del Consiglio del 20 dicembre 2010 relativo all’attuazione di una cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale – Commentario, in Le nuove leggi civili commentate 2011, pp. 1435–1543.

  8. 8.

    L. Fumagalli, Diritto straniero (applicazione e limiti), in Enciclopedia del diritto, Giuffrè, Milano, 2011, p. 471 ff.

  9. 9.

    N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 573.

  10. 10.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, in Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, The Application of Foreign Law in Civil Matters in the EU Member States and its Perspectives for the Future, JLS/2009/JCIV/PR/0005/E4, Part I, Legal Anlysis, Avis 09-184, Lausanne, 11 July, 2011, p. 273, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/foreign_law_en.pdf (hereinafter G.P. Romano, Italy); L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 471; Tuo C., Obbligazioni contrattuali ed applicazione della legge straniera: un preoccupante segnale di regresso da parte della Corte di Cassazione, in RDIPP 2010, p. 74 ff.

  11. 11.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 273; Fumagalli L., cit., 471; C. Tuo, cit., 74. In this line, an EU position favorable to the mandatory nature of EU conflict of laws rules is taken by the EU Commission, and by the Rome III Regulation, according to which the European Judicial Network “could assist the courts with regard to the content of foreign law”. According to the Commission “different practices [are] followed in the Member States regarding the treatment of foreign law”. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to take appropriate measures if necessary. In OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, pp. 40 ff. See L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 470–471. See also 2001/470/EC: Council Decision of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, in OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, pp. 25 ff., Recital 14. See P. Franzina, Il ruolo della rete giudiziaria europea nell’applicazione e nello sviluppo degli strumenti della cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile, in N. Boschiero and P. Bertoli (Eds.), Verso un “ordine comunitario” del processo civile – Atti del Convegno interinale della Società italiana di Diritto internazionale (Como, 23 novembre 2007), Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, 2008, pp. 185–199.

  12. 12.

    According to Arts. 64, 65 and 66 of the Italian PIL Statute. Regarding these rules, see A. D’Alessandro, Il riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere, Giappichelli, Torino, 2007, pp. XIX-400; O. Lopes Pegna, I procedimenti relativi all’efficacia delle decisioni straniere in materia civile, CEDAM, Padova, 2009, pp. XIII–313.

  13. 13.

    For instance, recently the issue arose of whether Italian courts had jurisdiction to hear a case related to an alleged breach of contracts, raised by an Italian company against the US governmental agency Navy Engineering Field Activity Mediterranean. Ultimately, Italian jurisdiction was declined by the Supreme Court in 2012, since parties agreed “to renounce acting against the Government of the United States, save where so allowed by the clauses concerning the termination of the present agreements and the relevant US federal legislation”. According to the Supreme Court, the relevant US federal legislation was to be ascertained by the Court of first and second instance ex officio and according to the principle of iura novit curia. The legislation in question ascertained no contractual action against US governmental agencies before Italian courts. See Corte Cass. 7.6.2012 n. 9189, in RDIPP 2013, pp. 433 ff.

  14. 14.

    See the survey conducted by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law within the study previously mentioned on “the application of foreign law in civil matters in the EU Member States and its perspective for the future”. This survey consisted of sending fifty-two questionnaires concerning the application of foreign law to a number of Italian legal professionals, namely judicial authorities, both Courts of Appeal and Tribunals of first instance, public registrars, lawyers and notaries, and then by analysing their respective replies. Particularly, two out of eight judicial authorities surveyed emphasized that foreign law also plays a crucial role in Italy when deciding upon the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and when implementing letters of rogation. See Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, The Application of Foreign Law in Civil Matters in the EU Member States and its Perspectives for the Future, JLS/2009/JCIV/PR/0005/E4, Part I, Legal Analysis, Part II, Empirical Analysis, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, Avis 09–184, Lausanne, 11 July, 2011, pp. 224–238, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/foreign_law_en.pdf, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/foreign_law_ii_en.pdf, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/foreign_law_iii_en.pdf (hereinafter Swiss Institute Study). See C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, in Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, The Application of Foreign Law in Civil Matters in the EU Member States and its Perspectives for the Future, JLS/2009/JCIV/PR/0005/E4, Part II, Empirical Analysis, cit., pp. 226 ff.

  15. 15.

    See Art. 16 of the Preliminary Dispositions of the Italian Civil Code (hereinafter: disp. prel. c. c.). Reciprocity does not concern either foreigners regularly resident in Italy and benefitting from non-discrimination treatments, or fundamental human rights, which can be claimed by any foreigner in Italy. B. Nascimbene, La capacità dello straniero: diritti fondamentali e condizione di reciprocità, in RDIPP 2011, pp. 307 ff.

  16. 16.

    See Trib. Vicenza 27.4.2000, in RDIPP 2001, p. 130 ff.; Corte Cass. 7.5.2009 n. 10504, Ibidem 2010, p. 776 ff.; Corte Cass. 11.2. 2010 n. 3098, Ibidem, p. 748 ff.; Corte Cass. 30.10. 2008 n. 26063, Ibidem 2009, pp. 661.

  17. 17.

    Court of Appeal of Torino 10.12.2004, Ibidem 2005, p. 777.

  18. 18.

    See Corte Cass. 24.6.2009 n. 14777, in Diritto commercio internazionale 2010, p. 217 ff. See the comment to this judgment of M.E. De Maestri and F. Pesce, La possibile estensione applicativa dell’art. 14 della legge 218 del 1995 alla luce di una recente sentenza della Corte di Cassazione, ibidem, p. 223 ff.

  19. 19.

    See I. Queirolo, Conoscenza del diritto straniero e contraddizioni della giurisprudenza italiana, in RDIPP 2010, p. 603 ff. This judgment is interpreted by part of the Italian literature as transforming Art.14 into a rule posing a general principle of procedural law, applicable as such not only to PIL cases but also to other situations where foreign law is invoked to demonstrate reciprocity. See B. Nascimbene, La capacità cit., p. 307 ff. Another approach could consider Art.16 disp. prel. c. c. as posing a PIL rule itself, namely a rule on the capacity of physical persons, and therefore as a norm included in the PIL system. B. Ubertazzi, La capacità delle persone fisiche nel diritto internazionale privato, Cedam, Padova, 2006, passim. According to this approach, then, Art.14 PIL also applies to (PIL) cases falling under Art.16 disp. prel. c.c., with the positive result of avoiding discriminations between the parties obliged to prove the content of foreign laws and the parties not obliged to do so. This approach seems to have been confirmed by the Supreme Court judgment of 2009.

  20. 20.

    As published with commentaries in various legal journals of a general nature or of a specialized character. Namely Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, Rivista di diritto internazionale, Diritto del commercio internazionale, Le Nuove Leggi Civili e Commentate, Giurisprudenza italiana, Giustizia Civile, Enciclopedia del diritto, Enciclopedia giuridica Treccani, il Foro Italiano. Also, on-line data bases were accessed, namely Juris data, DeJure, il Foro italiano, and the data bases available at the web-sites of the Italian Supreme Court, of the Constitutional Court and of the Italian Official Journal (Gazzetta Ufficiale).

  21. 21.

    See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 266–287 and C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 226 ff.

  22. 22.

    These Madrid Principles were devised as part of the EU project on “the Application of Foreign Law by Judicial and Non-Judicial Authorities in Europe”: “Team European Union Action Grant Project-Civil Justice JLS/CJ/2007-1/03”. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, Italy, in C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias and G. Palao (Eds.), Application of Foreign Law, Sellier, Munich, 2011, pp. 237–253. The Madrid Principles for a future EU Regulation on the application of foreign law are available at www.elra.eu/wp-content/uploads/file/Valencia.doc

  23. 23.

    Available at the Hague Conference website: http://www.hcch.net/upload/hidden/2012/xs2foreignlaw.html; and http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2013concl_e.pdf. Particularly from the “verbal notes” of February 5, 2008, with which the Embassy of Italy in The Hague forwarded to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law the responses to the questionnaire related to this study. Available at the Hague Conference website: http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_pd09it.pdf

  24. 24.

    See Corte Cass. 26.5.2014 n. 11751, in Foro it. 2014, 6, I, 1738 commented by G. Casaburi, ibidem.

  25. 25.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 268; N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 541 ff.; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 241; I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 622; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 195.

  26. 26.

    See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., pp. 571–574. See also the references provided for by G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 266, fnt. 1.

  27. 27.

    See Corte Cass. 26.5.1980 n. 3445, in RDIPP 1981, p. 79 ff.

  28. 28.

    See Corte Cass. 23.2.1978 n. 903, in RDIPP 1979, p. 814 ff. Even before the previous PIL system see Cassazione del Regno 28.6.1940, in Riv. diritto internazionale 1942, p. 212 ff. See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., 545.

  29. 29.

    See I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 622; G.P. Romano, cit., p. 269.

  30. 30.

    See G.P. Romano, cit., p. 269.

  31. 31.

    See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 571.

  32. 32.

    N. Boschiero, Norme cit., 541 ss.; G.P. Romano, Italy cit., p. 268; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 241; I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 622; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., 195; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 471.

  33. 33.

    See Corte Cass 29 marzo 1982, n.1936, in RDIPP 1983, 625. See Corte Cass. (s.u.) 13.1.1990 n. 362, in Giur it. 1990, I, p. 1260 ff.; Corte Cass. 19.2.1986 n. 995, in RDIPP 1987, p. 823 ff.; Corte Cass. 19.1.1985 n. 149, in RDIPP 1986, p. 344 ff.; Corte Cass. 21.3.1980 n. 1906, in RDIPP 1981, p. 498 ff. See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., 545; I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 611; M. Rubino-Sammartano, Il giudice nazionale di fronte alla legge straniera, in RDIPP 1991, p. 317.

  34. 34.

    Corte Cass. 5.6.2009, in RDIPP 2010, 140.

  35. 35.

    See Corte Cass. 4.4.11 n. 7599, in Giust. Civ. Massimario 2011, 4, 536. In this divorce case involving spouses of different nationalities, the Court required the parties to prove where their matrimonial life was predominantly located in order to determine the applicable law. The Supreme Court, however, found that the court of first instance erred in its assessment of this issue and overturned its ruling. This judgment was welcomed by the Italian literature according to which conflict of law rules can only be applied if the factual pattern of the case calls for such application; whereas leaving this issue to the parties’ initiative would render the Italian choice of laws rules in concreto “facultative”, contrary to Art. 14 Italian PIL statute. See the comment of C. Tuo, Obbligazioni contrattuali e applicazione della legge straniera:: un preoccupante segnale di regresso da parte della Corte di Cassazione, in RDIPP 2010, p. 55 ss. See also the partial critics and the references to case-law in I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 633 fnt. 82.

  36. 36.

    S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 198.

  37. 37.

    I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., 633 and footnote 82 for references.

  38. 38.

    Ibidem.

  39. 39.

    N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 578; N. Boschiero, sub Art. 14, in S. Bariatti (Ed.), Legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, Commentario, in Le Nuove Leggi Civili e Commentate 1996, p. 1038 ff.

  40. 40.

    See Swiss Institute Study, Part III, Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 6. The exact number of these cases is unknown due to the fact that Italy does not collect statistical data on this issue (See supra, para 1.1.).

  41. 41.

    Ibidem, pp. 224–226 ff.

  42. 42.

    Ibidem, pp. 226–230. These results are confirmed by an analysis of the judgments that apply foreign laws and that are published in the 2005–2013(1–2) issues of the main Italian law legal journal reporting on judgments on conflict of laws issues, namely the aforementioned “Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale”. Just thirty-four judgments applied foreign laws as designated by conflict of laws rules of the Italian PIL statute. Foreign laws are most typically applied in family law, contract law and in the context of employment relationships. The States whose laws are most frequently applied are Morocco and the US, while German, Egyptian, Canadian, Tunisian, Spanish and Brazilian laws also play relevant roles. The judgments at stake are hereinafter listed in chronological order: Corte Cass. 21.1.2013 n.1302, in RDIPP 2013, p. 472 (US law); Corte Cass. 7.6.2012 n. 9189, Ibidem, p. 433 ff. (US law); Corte Cass. 30.4.2012 n. 6622, Ibidem, p. 165 (Swiss law); Trib. Belluno 30.12.2011, Ibidem 2012, p. 452 (Moroccan law, Moudawana); Trib. Chiavari 12.12.2011, Ibidem, p. 937 (Australian law, South Australia State law); Trib. Novara 14.7.2011, Ibidem, p. 958 (Rumanian law); Trib. Treviso 9.5.2011, Ibidem, p. 383 (Moroccan law, Moudawana); Corte Cass. 4.4.2011 n. 7599, Ibidem 2011, p. 1092 (Canadian law); Corte Cass. 25.11.2010 n. 23933, Ibidem, p. 474 (German law); Trib. Torino 20.7.2010, Ibidem 2012, p. 227 (Spanish law); Trib. Prato 16.7.2010, Ibidem, p. 145 (Brazilian law); Trib. Aosta 25.6.2010, Ibidem 2011, p. 437 (Moroccan law, Moudawana); Trib. Tivoli 4.8.2009, Ibidem, p. 160 (US law, State of Virginia); Trib. Firenze 18.5.2009, Ibidem, p. 145 (Spanish law); Corte Cass. 19.4.2010 n. 9276, Ibidem, p. 195 (Tunisian law); Trib. Firenze 15.4.2009, Ibidem 2010, p. 769 (US law, State of Georgia); Trib. Belluno 6.3.2009, in Ibidem 2011, p. 140 (Indian law, Hindu Marriage Act); Trib. Reggio Emilia 31.7.2008, Ibidem 2009, p. 737 (Tunisian law); Corte Cass. 26.5.2008 n. 13547, Ibidem, p. 409, (US law, State of New York); Trib. Reggio Emilia 3.9.07, in Ibidem, p. 638 (Vietnamese law); Corte Cass. 19.7.07 n. 16017, Ibidem 2008, p. 533 (US law, State of New York); Trib. Reggio Emilia 14.5.2007, Ibidem 2009, p. 729 (Jersey law); Trib. Rovereto 15.3.07, Ibidem 2008, p. 179 (UK law); Trib. Milano 2.2.2007, Ibidem, p. 137 (Pachistani law); Corte Cass. 28.12.06 n. 27592, Ibidem 2007, p. 443 (Egyptian law); Corte Cass. 23.2.2006 n. 4040, Ibidem, p. 157 (US law, State of New York); Corte Cass. 7.12.2005 n. 26976, Ibidem 2006, p. 1053 (US law); Corte Cass. 4.11.2005 n. 21395, Ibidem, p. 791 (Moroccan law); Corte Cass. 28.9.2005 n. 18944, Ibidem, p. 774 (British Virgin Islands); Trib. Pordenone 14.9.2005, Ibidem, p. 181 (Moroccan law, Moudawana); Corte Cass 29.7.2005 n. 15956, Ibidem, p. 1097 (German law); Corte Cass. 9.6.2005 n. 12169, Ibidem, p. 438 (Moroccan law); Corte Cass. 21.4.2005 n. 8296, Ibidem 2005, p. 1088 (Brazilian law); Corte Cass 26.11.2004 n. 22332, Ibidem, p. 771 (Canadian law).

  43. 43.

    See F. Pocar, cit., p. 35; N. Boschiero, Norme cit., 541 ff; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., 241; I. Queirolo, Conoscenza cit., p. 622; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., 195; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 470; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 268.

  44. 44.

    See I. Pittaluga, La prova del diritto straniero: evoluzioni giurisprudenziali in Francia e in Italia, in RDIPP 2002, p. 688 ff.; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 266.

  45. 45.

    See the references in N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 545.

  46. 46.

    See Corte Cass. 16.2.1966 n. 486, in RDIPP 1966, p. 571 ff.; Corte Cass. 13.4.1959 n. 1089, in Giur. it. 1960, I, 1, p. 583 ff. See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 543; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 269.

  47. 47.

    See supra, fnt. 33.

  48. 48.

    See Corte Cass. 9.5.2007 n. 10549, in RDIPP 2008, p. 216 ff.; Corte Cass. 29.3.2006 n. 7250, ibidem 2007, p. 787 ff.; Corte Cass. 9.1.2004 n. 111, ibidem 2005, p. 172 ff.; Corte Cass. 12.11.1999 n. 12538, ibidem 2001, p. 651 ff. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 276.

  49. 49.

    See I. Pittaluga, cit., p. 688; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 270; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 198. This obligation arises from the general rule codified by Art. 113 of the CCP, according to which Italian judicial authorities must determine ex officio the applicable norms in a case. Yet, judicial authorities shall inform parties on the decision to apply one or the other foreign laws, granting them the right to be heard on the point ex Art. 101 CCP. L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 473; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 272.

  50. 50.

    As opposed to the 1960s, when some authors claimed that judicial authorities had to apply foreign law solely at a party’s request. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 266 fnt 1 for references.

  51. 51.

    See the references in N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 545.

  52. 52.

    Corte Cass. 5.6.2009 n. 13087, in RDIPP 2010, p. 140 ff. See the comment of Tuo C., cit., p. 74 ff. See also the case-law referred to by G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 269.

  53. 53.

    See supra, para 2.1.

  54. 54.

    See the case-law abovementioned, supra, fnt. 33. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 275.

  55. 55.

    See Corte Cass. 1312.1.1978 n. 135, in RDIPP 1979, p. 677 ff. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 275.

  56. 56.

    See Corte Cass. 16.2.1966 n. 486, cit., p. 571 ff.; Corte Cass. 13.4.1959 n. 1089, cit., p. 583 ff. See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 543; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 275.

  57. 57.

    Corte Cass. 23.2.1978 n. 903, cit., p. 814 ff.

  58. 58.

    This approach is adopted for proceedings commenced prior to the entry into force of the Italian PIL Statute too, provided that the judgments related to these proceedings have not become final. See Corte Cass. 17.11.2003 n. 17388, in RDIPP 2004, p. 1042 ff.; Corte Cass. 12.111.1999 n. 12538, cit., p. 651 ff. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 241; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 276.

  59. 59.

    This approach has been adopted by lower level courts, with regard to proceedings instituted not only before, but also after the entry into force of the Italian PIL Statute. See Corte Cass. 19.4.2010 n. 9276, Ibidem, p. 195; Corte Cass. 20.7.2007 n. 16089, in RDIPP 2008, p. 1121 ff.; Corte Cass. 15.6.2007 n. 14031, in RDIPP 2007, p. 1116; Corte Cass. 29.3.2006 n. 7250, cit., p. 787 ff.; Corte Cass. 19.1.2006 n. 22406, in RDIPP 2007, p. 769 ff.; Corte Cass. 9.1.2004 n. 111, in RDIPP 2005, p. 172 ff.; Corte Cass. 11.11.2002 n. 15822, in RDIPP 2003, p. 978 ff.; Corte Cass. 10.8.2002 n. 11434, Ibidem 2003, pp. 505; Corte Cass. 30.5.2001 n. 7365, Ibidem 2002, p. 745 ff.; Corte Cass. 20.5.2001 n. 7365, in Repertorio: 2001, Diritto internazionale privato [2290], n. 39; Corte Cass. 29.3.2001 n. 6757, in RDIPP 2002, pp. 450 ff. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 241. See also Milan Court of Appeal, specialized section in intellectual property 4.5.2012, registrar number 2935/2009, not yet published, p. 14 according to which the principle iura novit curia concerns exclusively the lex fori and does not extend to foreign laws.

  60. 60.

    See L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 473; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 275. See Corte Cass. 26.2.2002 n. 2791, in RDIPP 2002, p. 463 ff.

  61. 61.

    See the multinational European Convention on Information on Foreign Law, adopted in London, on June the 7th 1968 and its Additional Protocol and designated the Ministry of Justice (Ministero di Grazia e Giustizia) as the receiving and transmitting agency in pursuance of Art. 2, paragraph 3, and of Art. 4 of this Convention and its Additional Protocol. Particularly, see the Italian declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy dated 10 April 1972 handed to the Secretary General of the London Convention at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification on 10 April 1972, and respectively the Italian declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy dated 5 February 1982, handed to the Secretary General of the Addition Protocol to the Convention at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification on 11 February 1982. This Convention and its related Protocol were adopted under the framework of the Council of Europe. The texts of the Convention and the Protocol together with the list of declarations, reservations and other communications by States parties is available on the official website of the Council of Europe at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=062&CM=1&CL=ENG. The London Convention was welcomed by Italian literature as being particularly innovative, in that it obliges the receiving agency of the State party to reply on the content of its legal system in a detailed way upon request. Yet this Convention was very rarely applied in Italy due to the difficulties to activate its complex operational mechanisms. See S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 199; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 277; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 249.

  62. 62.

    Such as: (a) the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (this Convention was adopted in the framework of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. Italy ratified the Convention on 22.6.1982. See the status table on the official website at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=82. Particularly, see Art. 1.); (b) the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (this Convention was adopted in the framework of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. Italy ratified the Convention on 22.3.1985. See the status table on the official website at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24. Particularly, see Art. 14.). In contrast, Italy is not part of (a) the Hague Convention on 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-Operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (this Convention was adopted in the framework of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. Italy did not ratify this Convention. See the status table on the official website at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=70. Particularly, see Art. 35.); (b) of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (this Convention was adopted in the framework of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. Italy did not ratify this Convention. See the status table on the official website at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=71. Particularly, see Art. 29.); and of the Minsk Convention of 22 January 1993 on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (this Convention was adopted in the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Italy did not ratify this Convention. See the Convention at http://www.unhcr.org/4de4edc69.html).

  63. 63.

    These bilateral Conventions are published, together with all multilateral Conventions ratified by Italy, in the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs data base. See “ITRA – Banca dati dei Trattati Internazionali, Data base of the International Treaty”, accessible on the official website at http://itra.esteri.it/Ricerca_Documenti/Ricerca_Documenti2.aspx. Multilateral and bilateral treaties to which Italy is a party are published also in M. Giuliano, F. Pocar and T. Treves (Eds.), Codice delle convenzioni di diritto interanzionale privato e processuale, 2 ed., Giuffrè, Milano, 1981. See also G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 278.

  64. 64.

    If the Italian Ministry does not possess this information, it shall use any instruments of international conventions or diplomatic channels to acquire it, and may also request it from the Ministry of Justice of the foreign State in question. Once acquired, the information shall be transferred by the Ministry to the interested judicial authorities. G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 278; L. Funagalli, cit., p. 474 fnt 30.

  65. 65.

    Firstly, judicial authorities may select CTUs that are inscribed in apposite registers, which are kept by the chancellery of every court and are divided into various categories (Art. 13 of the norms executing Italian CCP, so called “disposizioni di attuazione del codice di procedura civile”, hereinafter “disp. att. CCP.”). To be included in the registers candidates must possess specific technical competences, must be “morally impeccable”, must be members of their respective professional associations (Art. 14 disp. att. CCP), and have to be selected by a Committee formed by the Public Prosecutor and by a professional of these associations (Art. 15 disp. att. CCP). Secondly, judicial authorities may select CTUs that are not inscribed in apposite registers. However, in this case the President of the judicial authority in question shall approve the appointment, and may require an explanation for why it was necessary to appoint a CTU inscribed in no registers. This second procedure is usually adopted with regard to CTU experts in foreign laws, since few of them are inscribed in registers. For instance the section on expert in foreign laws of the CTU register at the disposal of the Court of Verona indicates just one expert in German law and one expert in the law of Islamic countries: http://www.tribunale.verona.giustizia.it/it/Content/Ctu/13335?nominativo=&professione=103953&lemma=&Idlink=13335. See also L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 474 fnt. 28.

  66. 66.

    In including experts/consultants and specialized institutions in the list of means of ascertaining foreign laws, Art. 14 reaffirms what had previously been established by Arts. 61–64 and 68 of the Italian CCP, according to which judicial authorities may avail themselves of the assistance of qualified experts or consultants. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 244; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 279; S.M. Carbone, La Conoscenza cit., p. 199.

  67. 67.

    In assisting judicial authorities parties typically produce opinions pro veritate that are rendered by experts (appointed by the parties) in the applicable foreign law. Parties also avail themselves of expert witnesses and CTPs who are selected on the basis of their professional reputation. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 245; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 200; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 276.

  68. 68.

    This method has limits since Consuls are not obliged to assist judicial authorities and their assistance is limited to providing texts of existing laws and customs, rather than their literal or case-law interpretations. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 279; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 475.

  69. 69.

    See F. Pocar, cit., p. 41; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 279.

  70. 70.

    In fact, Recital 10 of the Decision establishing this network states that it seeks to facilitate judicial cooperation between the Member States in civil and commercial matters, both in sectors to which existing international instruments apply and in areas where no instrument is currently available. See L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 475 fnt. 32.

  71. 71.

    See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 279.

  72. 72.

    See C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, p. 224.

  73. 73.

    Ibidem. Finally, in cases where the London Convention is applied in Italy, judicial authorities rely on its specific rules on the bearing of costs of ascertaining foreign law. In contrast, Italian law does not rule on the costs of ascertaining foreign laws. However, in practice the costs of CTUs are typically not borne solely by the party who invokes this method of ascertainment of foreign law but rather are equally distributed between the parties. Judicial authorities are fee to distribute CTUs’ costs on a different basis. Furthermore, each party bears the costs related to the means adopted to assist judicial authorities in ascertaining foreign law. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 280.

  74. 74.

    N. Boschiero, sub art. 15, in S. Bariatti (Ed.), cit., p. 1043; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 476; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246.

  75. 75.

    N. Boschiero, sub art. 15, cit., p. 1045.

  76. 76.

    Ibidem, p. 1043.

  77. 77.

    Ibidem, p. 1044.

  78. 78.

    In situations where the second accepted renvoi applies, Italian judicial authorities shall characterize the case before them a third time according to the PIL system of the legal system applicable by the conflict of laws rules included in the legal order of the foreign law that was initially found applicable by the Italian PIL Statute, and so on and so forth in cases of further grades of renvoi. Ibidem, p. 1044–1045.

  79. 79.

    Ibidem, p. 1045.

  80. 80.

    See P. Ivaldi, In tema di applicazione giudiziale del diritto straniero, in RDIPP 2010, 594; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., 247. See also the Report on Art. 15 of the Italian PIL statute, recalled by P. Ivaldi at p. 594, fnt. 42. Finally, see G. Morelli, Controllo di costituzionalità di norme straniere, in Riv. it. scienze giuridiche 1954, p. 27; G. De Nova, Legge straniera e controllo di costituzionalità, in Il foro pad. 1955, IV, c 1; R. Quadri, Controllo sulla legittimità costituzionale delle norme straniere, in Diritto internazionale 1959, p. 31; F. Mosconi, Norme straniere e controllo di costituzionalità e legittimità internazionale, in Diritto internazionale 1960, p. 426; S.M. Carbone, Sul controllo di costituzionalità della norma straniera richiamata, in RDIPP 1965, p. 689; G. Badiali, Il ruolo del giudice nel controllo della costituzionalità delle norme straniere richiamate, in Riv. dir. int. 2006, p. 611.

  81. 81.

    See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., 593; I. Pittaluga, cit., p. 693.

  82. 82.

    See Corte Cass. 16.2.1966 n. 486, cit., p. 571 ff. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 587.

  83. 83.

    See the references in P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 587, fnt. 12.

  84. 84.

    See Corte Cass. 26.2.2002 n. 2791, cit., 464. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 585 ss.; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 476; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 276. See also Corte Cass. 4.11.2005 n. 21395, Ibidem, p. 791.

  85. 85.

    Corte Cass. 26.2.2002 n. 2791, cit., p. 470. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., 589 ss.; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 247; F. Marongiu Buonaiuti, Un ritorno al “diritto internazionale privato facoltativo” in una recente sentenza della Corte di Cassazione, in Riv. dir. int. 2002, p. 962 ff.

  86. 86.

    Corte Cass. 26.2.2002 n. 2791, cit., p. 731. See also Corte Cass. 9.1.2004 n. 115, in RDIPP 2004, p. 1379. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 589 ss.; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 247.

  87. 87.

    See Corte Cass. 24.6.2009 n. 14777, cit., p. 217 ff. See the comment to this judgment of M.E. De Maestri and F. Pesce, cit., p. 223 ff. See also G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 281.

  88. 88.

    Trib. Modena 12.8.1996, in Giur.it 1997, I, 2, 368; Trib. Modena 11.7.1998, in Giur. it. 1999, p. 50. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 281.

  89. 89.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 281.

  90. 90.

    See P. Picone, La teoria cit., 344. See also G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 282–283; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 204; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 475. See, however, P. Picone, La teoria generale del diritto internazionale privato nella legge italiana di riforma della materia, in Riv. dir. int. 1996, p. 344, according to whom Art.14 Section 2 should apply only to subsidiary connecting factors, since the rationale behind alternative connecting factors is to determine different applicable laws for different cases, not multiple laws in the same case.

  91. 91.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 282–283; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 204; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 475.

  92. 92.

    N. Boschiero, sub art. 14, cit., p. 1042; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 282; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 476. During the previous PIL system, in fact, in the absence of any explicit rules on the issue of the failure to establish foreign law, Italian case law typically adopted two different approaches. The first more rigorous approach consisted of entirely rejecting the claims of the party invoking the application of a foreign law in cases where this party failed to establish its content (Corte Cass. 4.5.1985 n. 2805, in RDIPP 1986, p. 648; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 282; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246 fnt. 25). The second approach, followed by the majority of Italian jurisprudence, consisted of imposing the application of Italian law in cases where the interested party failed to establish foreign law (Corte Cass. 1.4.1980 n. 2094, in RDIPP 1981, p. 500; Corte Cass. 21.3.1980 n. 1906, cit., p. 499. See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 282; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246 fnt. 25), assuming that Italian law had a primacy nature over any foreign laws and was either identical to the foreign law invoked or inspired by general principles analogous to those of the appropriate law (G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 282; N. Boschiero, sub art. 14, cit., p. 1042).

  93. 93.

    P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 600; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 283. See Corte Cass. 21.4.2005 n. 8360, in RDIPP 2006, p. 739.

  94. 94.

    P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 600; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 283. See the opposite view as referred to by P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 600 fnt. 63.

  95. 95.

    Corte Cass. 25.3.02 n. 4203, in Giur. it. 2002, p. 1649; Corte Cass 11.11.2002 n. 15822, in RDIPP 2003, p. 978; Cass. 29.3.2006 n. 7250, cit., p. 787; Cass. 5.6.2007 n. 13184, in RDIPP 2008, p. 836; Corte Cass. 15.6.2007 n. 14031, cit., p. 1116; Cass. 21.1.2004 n. 886 in RDIPP 2005, p. 173. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., pp. 600–601; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 283–284.

  96. 96.

    Cass. 17.11.03 17388 in RDIPP 2004, p. 1042. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., pp. 601–602; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 283–284.

  97. 97.

    See supra, para 3.4. See N. Boschiero, sub art. 14, cit., p. 1044.

  98. 98.

    Ibidem.

  99. 99.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 283.

  100. 100.

    Ibidem.

  101. 101.

    This case-law, in fact, emphasized that judicial review concerned only erroneous application of laws, whereas foreign law had to be considered as a fact, rather than as a law. This approach was partially overruled by a 1959 Supreme that overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment because of an erroneous application of the relevant Pennsylvanian law. Moreover, the Supreme Court ascertained this same applicable law itself, by recalling doctrinal and jurisprudential case-law. Yet after this judgment, other case law still denied judicial review to judgments based on erroneous application of foreign laws. Corte Cass. 13.4.1959 n. 1089, in Giur. it. 1960, I, 1, p. 583 ff. See N. Boschiero, Norme cit., p. 543; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 269.

  102. 102.

    See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 600; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 284.

  103. 103.

    Corte Cass. 21.4.2005 n. 8360, cit., p. 742. See P. Ivaldi, In tema cit., p. 600; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 284.

  104. 104.

    S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 200; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 285.

  105. 105.

    Ibidem.

  106. 106.

    Ibidem.

  107. 107.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 285.

  108. 108.

    For instance, according to Italian civil code, in order to recognise a marriage between spouses one or both of which possess foreign nationalities, civil registry officers must ascertain the fulfilment of all matrimonial conditions that are required by the same code. See I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 250; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 285.

  109. 109.

    See C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 228.

  110. 110.

    Ibidem, p. 229.

  111. 111.

    Ibidem, p. 232.

  112. 112.

    See R. Luzzatto, International Commercial Arbitration and Municipal Law of States, in 157 RC 1977-IV, pp. 83 ff.; L. Radicati di Brozolo, Arbitrage commercial international et lois de police: considérations sur les conflits de juridictions dans le commerce international, in 315 RC 2005, p. 463 ff.; A. Carlevaris, L’accertamento del diritto nell’arbitrato internazionale tra principio iura novit curia e onere della prova, in Riv. Arb. 2007, p. 525 ff.; S.M. Carbone, L’autonomia privata nei rapporti economici internazionali ed i suoi limiti, in RDIPP 2007, p. 891 ff.; P. Bernardini, L’arbitrato nel commercio e negli investimenti internazionali, 2ed., Giuffrè, Milano, 2008; A. Atteritano, L’enforcement delle sentenze arbitrali del commercio internazionale, Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, pp. 266 ff.; S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia e arbitrato commerciale internazionale, in RDIPP 2010, p. 355 ff.

  113. 113.

    This norm is consistent with Recommendation 1 of the International Law Association Resolution on “Ascertaining the content of the applicable law in international commercial arbitration”, adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 2008. See P. Bernardini, cit., pp. 203–204; S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., p. 355.

  114. 114.

    The Resolution is available on the official website at http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/19. See the report to this Resolution on “Ascertaining the Contents of the Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration” written by “Professor Filip De Ly (Netherlands): Chair, Professor Luca G Radicati di Brozolo (Italy): Co-Rapporteur, Mr. Mark Friedman (UK): Co-Rapporteur”. See generally S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., p. 355 ff.

  115. 115.

    Yet this principle applies with peculiarities in arbitration as articulated in Recommendation 4 of the ILA Resolution of 2008 mentioned above. See S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., p. 355.

  116. 116.

    This follows from the deontological duty of arbitrators to render an effective and enforceable award, as stated in Recommendation 13 of the ILA Resolution of 2008. See S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., p. 363; S.M. Carbone, L’autonomia cit, 904–906; L. Radicati di Brozolo, Arbitrage cit., p. 463.

  117. 117.

    S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., pp. 356 and 366.

  118. 118.

    This is consistent with Recommendation 8 of the ILA Resolution of 2008. S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., pp. 361 and 366; A. Carlevaris, L’accertamento cit., pp. 525–527.

  119. 119.

    S.M. Carbone, Iura novit curia cit., p. 358.

  120. 120.

    Ibidem, p. 358; R. Luzzatto, International cit., pp. 83 ff.; A. Atteritano, cit., pp. 266 ff.

  121. 121.

    I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 250; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 285.

  122. 122.

    in corporate matters, foreign law plays an important role before Italian notaries when companies move abroad or in mergers when at least one of the corporations involved is not Italian. In matrimonial property and international inheritance law, in order to draft real estate contracts when at least one of the parties is a foreigner, notaries are required by law to verify both the contractual capacity of parties and the seller’s and purchaser’s marital status and matrimonial property regime. C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 227.

  123. 123.

    In contrast, notaries rarely refer to paid foreign legal databases or opinions of legal experts because of their extremely high costs nor do they use diplomatic channels because of their lengthiness. Ibidem, p. 237. See also E. Calò, Le Nouveau Réseau Mondial du Notariat institué au sein de l’Union international du Notariat, 15–17 février 2012, 2, available on the official website of the Hague Conference of Private International Law at www.hcch.net

  124. 124.

    G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 286 ff.; E. Calò, cit., p. 2.

  125. 125.

    Particularly, in litigation and in drafting legal documents related to inheritance law, family law, bankruptcy law, international and cross-border taxation, tort and contractual law. C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 225.

  126. 126.

    In contrast, lawyers rarely refer to diplomatic channels, paid foreign legal databases, or opinions of legal experts because of their extremely high costs and they never use the mechanisms of the London Convention or bilateral mechanisms of judicial cooperation. Ibidem, p. 232.

  127. 127.

    Ibidem, pp. 230–236.

  128. 128.

    See the site for the official gazette (Gazzetta Ufficiale) See supra, para 1.4. See also See http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/homePostLogin;jsessionid = 04Inf66nVoY88 + XXQ7RIvw__.ntc-as2-guri2a. See http://www.giurcost.org/. See supra, para 1.4.

  129. 129.

    See the data bases mentioned by the Central Library of the Ministry of Justice: http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_7_4_3.wp. See supra, para 1.4.

  130. 130.

    See the databases established by the competent services of the Supreme Court: http://www.cortedicassazione.it/AreaRiservata/AreaRiservata.asp. See supra, para 1.4.

  131. 131.

    See the journals mentioned in the catalogue of the central library of the Ministry of Justice: http://opac.giustizia.it/SebinaOpac/Opac. See supra, para 1.4.

  132. 132.

    This website is operated by the EU and allows access to each official database of national law of the 28 EU countries via a standard search screen, in all official languages. See the database at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/n-lex-s/index_en.htm. See the Italian database at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/n-lex-s/info/info_it/index_en.htm. See C.M. Germain, Digitizing the World’s Laws. Woking Paper, in R.A. Danner and J. Winterton, International Legal Information Management Handbook, London, Ashgate, 2010, p. 181 ff.

  133. 133.

    See the meta-search engine here: http://network-presidents.eu/rpcsjue/?lang=it. See C.M. Germain, Digitizing cit., p. 181 ff. The list of participating countries is available at http://network-presidents.eu/rpcsjue/status.php

  134. 134.

    See the official website of the Italian Ministry of Justice http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_2_1_2_4.wp. Official statistical data on how frequently this system is used in Italy does not exist. According to the Swiss Institute Study, there is a general consensus among practitioners (judges, notaries, lawyers, public official registrars) that the European Judicial Network has enormous potential that has yet to be fulfilled.

  135. 135.

    The sharing of information on foreign laws through the Network only appears in the aforementioned Recital 14 of the Rome III Regulation, according to which the European Judicial Network, “could play a part in assisting the courts with regard to the content of foreign law” (see supra, para 1.1.). Yet the sharing of information on foreign laws does not appear in the list of “recitals” of the Decision instituting the European Judicial Network or on any part of the Commission’s website on the “Synthesis” of this Network. See Swiss Institute Study, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 87.

  136. 136.

    In fact, Italy has not yet fulfilled the requirement posed by Art. 2 of this resolution, according to which “States that have not designated Network judges are strongly encouraged to do so”. See the official website at http://www.hcch.net/upload/haguenetwork.pdf

  137. 137.

    Available at the Hague Conference website: http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_pd09it.pdf. See supra, para 1.4.

  138. 138.

    See supra, para 3.3. Furthermore, according to the survey of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, the reasons for not using the London Convention are threefold: a lack of awareness of the mechanism, the length of this mechanism, and the unavailability of the Convention to practitioners other than judges, namely notaries, lawyers and public official registrars. In addition, this Convention requests complex translations, increases the costs of the proceedings and allows information on the relevant foreign law to be given without knowledge of the factual elements of the specific case. See Swiss Institute Study, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 59.

  139. 139.

    See C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 224.

  140. 140.

    Ibidem, pp. 225–226. See also above, para 2.2.

  141. 141.

    C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 226–227.

  142. 142.

    In fact, Italian PIL rules in these matters typically adopt nationality as the prevalent connecting factor and the relevant parties are usually foreigners. Ibidem.

  143. 143.

    See G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., pp. 282–283; S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 204; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246; L. Fumagalli, cit., p. 475.

  144. 144.

    N. Boschiero, sub. Art. 14 cit., p. 1042; G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 282; I. Queirolo (coordinator) and S.M. Carbone, P. Ivaldi, L. Carpaneto, C. Tuo, M.E. De Maestri, F. Pesce, cit., p. 246. S.M. Carbone, La conoscenza cit., p. 204.

  145. 145.

    The Resolution was adopted in Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle on September the 12th, 1989, under the Rapporteur Mr. Pierre Gannagé, and is available on the official website at http://www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/1989_comp_02_en.PDF

  146. 146.

    See Principle 2, available on the official website at http://www.unidroit.org/english%20/principles/civilprocedure/main.htm

  147. 147.

    See C. Leuzzi and G.P. Romano, Italy, cit., p. 224.

  148. 148.

    Ibidem.

  149. 149.

    See Access to Foreign Law in Civil and Commercial Matters, Conclusions and Recommendations, number 3, available on the official website at http://www.hcch.net/upload/foreignlaw_concl_e.pdf (hereinafter: Access to Foreign Law).

  150. 150.

    Swiss Institute Study, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 7.

  151. 151.

    See Access to Foreign Law number 4. See also the conclusion of the Hague Conference Works on Foreign Law, as recalled by its First Secretary, Lortie Philippe in The Evolution of Work on Foreign Law at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, pages unnumbered, available at http://www.legalaccess.eu/IMG/pdf/lortie-hcch-acces-droit-etranger.pdf (hereinafter: the Hague Works on Foreign Law). See also Swiss Institute Study, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 8. Yet, according to the already recalled Madrid Principles an EU Regulation should be adopted to achieve uniformity in the various Member States on the topic of the status of foreign law also. See Madrid Principles I–XI. See C. Esplugues, J.L. Iglesias, G. Palao, cit., passim.

  152. 152.

    See the recommendations of the experts’ works carried out between 2006 and 2009 in the frame of the Hague Conference of Private International Law, of the conference organised jointly by the European Commission and the Hague Conference on Private International Law from 15 to 17 February 2012, and of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. Swiss Institute Study, Part III Synthesis Report with Recommendations, cit., p. 8. See Access to Foreign Law, number 4. See also the Hague Works on Foreign Law.

  153. 153.

    See Access to Foreign Law, number 4. See also the Hague Works on Foreign Law.

    This part of the system on references of questions of foreign law should develop based on the model provided for by the court to court Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2010 between the Supreme Courts of New South Wales (Australia) and Singapore, and between the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and of New York State (). This mechanism allows a court to request foreign courts to determine questions related to the applicable foreign law that are in issue in the proceedings before the requesting court, provided the parties consent. See Hon Justice P.L.G. Brereton, Proof of Foreign Law: Problems and Initiatives, in 85 American Law Journal 2011, p. 1 ff.; J. Spigelman, Proof of Foreign Law by Reference to the Foreign Court, in 127 Law Quarterly Review 2011, 208 ff.

  154. 154.

    The Permanent Bureau, then, might facilitate a series of networks of qualified organisations (bar associations, comparative law institutes, organisations of notaries and other specialists), but the services of these organisations would not be provided on a free basis. See Access to Foreign Law, number 4. See also the Hague Works on Foreign Law.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono, 7, 20122, Milan, Italy

    Nerina Boschiero (Professor)

  2. Full Tenured Aggregate Professor, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Benedetta Ubertazzi

Authors
  1. Nerina Boschiero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benedetta Ubertazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nerina Boschiero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Yuko Nishitani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boschiero, N., Ubertazzi, B. (2017). Italy: Proof and Information about Foreign Law in Italy. In: Nishitani, Y. (eds) Treatment of Foreign Law - Dynamics towards Convergence?. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56574-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56574-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56572-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56574-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation