This case-note is concerned with a recent judgment of the ECJ, in which it was held that a jurisdiction clause, agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof, cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who brings an «action directe » for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in Article 23 Regulation Brussels I. The Author, after having examined the legal basis of the «action directe» in the French legal order, critically discusses the preliminary ruling, particularly as regards the denial by the Court to refer to national law in order to assess whether the jurisdiction clause between the manufacturer and the first buyer can extend its effects vis-à-vis the subbuyer.
La Corte di giustizia nega l’efficacia ultra partes degli accordi sulla giurisdizione rispetto all’azione diretta del subacquirente nelle vendite a catena
PENASA, LUCA
2013
Abstract
This case-note is concerned with a recent judgment of the ECJ, in which it was held that a jurisdiction clause, agreed in the contract concluded between the manufacturer of goods and the buyer thereof, cannot be relied on against a sub-buyer who brings an «action directe » for damages against the manufacturer, unless it is established that that third party has actually consented to that clause under the conditions laid down in Article 23 Regulation Brussels I. The Author, after having examined the legal basis of the «action directe» in the French legal order, critically discusses the preliminary ruling, particularly as regards the denial by the Court to refer to national law in order to assess whether the jurisdiction clause between the manufacturer and the first buyer can extend its effects vis-à-vis the subbuyer.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
