A topic we were discussing just a few days ago at the MPI, with especial attention to a Spanish decision. Now it’s Italian time. The article, by S. Ferrero, is to be found here.
In this work it is discussed the validity and the enforceability of unilateral choice-of-court agreements and options to arbitrate. Such clauses are very frequent in international contracts, particularly in loan agreements, where the provision is in favour of the lender, the stronger party to the contract. Whilst in various jurisdictions there are significant lines of authorities enforcing such agreements as perfectly valid, unilateral choice-of-court agreements and options to arbitrate have been recently questioned and struck down by the French, the Russian and the Bulgarian Supreme Courts. Recognizing in these decisions a rising general tendency, at the international level, contrary to asymmetric arbitration and choice of court agreements is, perhaps, premature. Nevertheless, the arguments put forward by the mentioned decisions naturally trigger further analysis of the matter. The legal assessment will be carried out under a twofold perspective: on the one hand, the private international law, which entails the analysis of the relevant European legislation (Regulation 44/2001 and Regulation 1215/2012) and, on the other hand, the domestic substantive law, namely Italian law. Particularly, it will be considered whether, in the light of the reasoning of the foreign case law, Italian courts may change their attitude towards one-sided jurisdiction and arbitration agreements. It is submitted that the decisions against the validity and enforceability are open to criticism and Italian courts should remain in favour of asymmetric arbitration and choice of court agreements for, it is suggested, the European legislation and Italian domestic law do not lead, expressly or implicitly, to hold them invalid and/or unenforceable, except for certain limited cases.