even though Italian procedural law actually provides for a mandatory jurisdiction in favour of the commercial agent (Art. 413 c.p.c.). The case concerned a commercial agency agreement from 2014, in which it was agreed that Italian law would apply, but that disputes would be settled before the court at the defendant's place of residence. The Italian commercial agent nevertheless brought an action before an Italian court, arguing that the jurisdiction clause was invalid due to national protective provisions.

 

The Corte di Cassa zione did not follow this line of argument and clarified that European law, in particular Art. 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), takes precedence over national provisions. This allows the parties to freely choose the competent court – even if this deviates from mandatory national law. The judges also emphasised that commercial agents are not employees within the meaning of EU law and are therefore not subject to the special protective provisions on jurisdiction in employment contracts. Any possible ambiguity in the clause was also rejected: the separation between the choice of applicable law (Italian) and the place of jurisdiction (Germany) was permissible and formulated in a comprehensible manner.

 

With this ruling, the Cassazione strengthens freedom of contract in international business transactions and confirms the validity of clearly worded jurisdiction clauses despite national restrictions. This gives companies legal certainty when drafting contracts for cross-border commercial relationships.