Italy / 20 November 1992 / Italy, Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court) / Fratelli Pozzoni S.p.A. v. Graphic Security Systems Corporation / 12385
| Country | Italy |
| Court | Italy, Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court) |
| Date | 20 November 1992 |
| Parties | Fratelli Pozzoni S.p.A. v. Graphic Security Systems Corporation |
| Case number | 12385 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(1) | II(3) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | An American company, Graphic Security Systems, and an Italian company, Fratelli Pozzoni, entered into a license and cooperation contract pursuant to which Fratelli Pozzoni was granted the exclusive right to produce and sell certain products and to use a patent belonging to Graphic Security Systems. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). A dispute arose and Graphic Security Systems sought and obtained an injunctive order from the President of the Tribunale di Bergamo (Bergamo First Instance Court) for the payment of certain amounts. Fratelli Pozzoni challenged the injunctive order (opposizione) by arguing that the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and that they should have referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the license and cooperation contract. Fratelli Pozzoni alternatively requested that the Tribunale di Bergamo issue an order (declaratoria di continenza) with regards to proceedings it had commenced before the Tribunale di Roma (Rome First Instance Court) seeking a declaration that the patent and the contract were null and void. Pending the opposition proceedings against the injunctive order, Fratelli Pozzoni requested the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court) to issue a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction (regolamento preventive di giurisdizione). The Corte Suprema di Cassazione held that the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It noted that the arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in New York under the AAA Rules was valid under the NYC even if it did not specify an arbitral body and the rules governing the arbitral proceedings, by vitue of the mere referral to international commercial usages providing such elements. Thus, in the case at hand, the reference to the AAA Rules was sufficient for the arbitration agreement to be valid. The Corte Suprema di Cassazione further stated that an arbitration agreement satisfies the written form requirement of Article II(1) NYC where it is contained in a contract signed by the parties. As a consequence, Article 1341 of the Italian Civil Code (which requires a specific approval for arbitration clauses contained in standard conditions prepared by one party) did not apply to the arbitration agreement even though the contract had been concluded in Italy. The Corte Suprema di Cassazione noted that in the instant case, the provision referring disputes to arbitration was an integral part of the contract signed by the parties and that its application was only excluded for disputes concerning the validity of the patent. The Corte Suprema di Cassazione concluded that in accordance with Article II(3) NYC, a valid arbitration agreement derogates from the jurisdiction of the Italian courts’ in respect of the disputes covered by its scope. It added that an arbitration agreement does not require a solemn or predetermined formulation, other than the written form requirement of Article II(1) NYC, as long as it shows the unequivocal will of the parties to defer their disputes to arbitration. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
