In the course of 2024, case law dealt with numerous profiles of the agency contract, clarifying relevant aspects such as the classification of new professional figures, such as influencers, in the role of commercial agents, as well as issues relating to the applicable procedure, commissions, access to accounting documents, termination of the relationship and related indemnities, non-competition covenants, damages and the distinction with business procuring. A thematic analysis of some of the most significant decisions follows.

_________________________________

1. Form of the agency contract: distinction between existence and content.

L'Article 1742(2) of the Civil Code. states that 'the agency contract must be evidenced in writing'. The rule does not impose the written form ad substantiam: the contract may also be validly concluded orally. However, for evidentiary purposes, the party wishing to rely on the relationship must provide written proof of its existence. Such proof may consist, for example, in a letter of assignment, business correspondence, a signed order confirmation or even a descriptive invoice.

Once the existence of the contract has been proved, the content of the covenants may instead also be reconstructed by means of evidence other than writing. Jurisprudence - most recently Civil cassation, sect. II, ord. 13 May 2024, no. 13008 - has clarified that individual clauses may result from testimonial declarations, presumptions or conclusive conduct, provided they are unambiguous and consistent.

In conclusion, while the existence of the contract necessarily requires a written document, its content can also be proven by other evidentiary means, in the presence of reliable and convergent elements.

Read also: The essential elements of the agency contract.

_________________________________

2. Proof of the agency relationship: criteria and burden of proof.

In a dispute concerning the qualification of a contractual relationship, the Court of Milan, in a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, had recognised the agent's right to receive the indemnity in lieu of notice and termination indemnity, recognising in the contract, albeit formally called a franchise, the presence of elements that can be traced back to the typical agency model. The relationship was qualified as a mixed contract, containing characteristics of both agency and franchising.

The Court found that the contract concluded, although called a 'franchise', had all the elements of an agency, namely:

  • continuous promotion of contracts on behalf of a principal;
  • zoning constraint;
  • obligation of exclusivity;
  • commission remuneration;
  • principal's obligation to approve contracts;
  • commercial training by the principal;
  • provision of tools and reporting by the principal.

The Court of Cassation (15/03/2024, n. 6971) declared inadmissible both the main appeal, aimed at sustaining the exclusively commercial nature of the agreement, and the cross-appeal, aimed at having it qualified exclusively as an agency contract. The College reiterated that the legal qualification of the contract, as well as the evaluation of the evidence, constitutes an appreciation reserved to the judge of merit and cannot be reviewed in the court of legitimacy, except in the case of violation of the rules of contractual hermeneutics, a violation that was not appropriately deduced in the specific case.

The decision is noteworthy in the context of the case law on agency for having confirmed that, in the presence of complex or atypical contracts, the identification of the applicable discipline - even where elements referable to agency are present - must be made on the basis of the substantial content of the relationship and the economic-social function pursued, and not of the name formally attributed by the parties. It is therefore not sufficient for the emergence of individual formal indicia to automatically invoke the application of the rules under Art. 1742 et seq. of the Civil Code.

On the subject of the burden of proof, the Court finally reiterated that the burden of proving the existence of the legal prerequisites is on the agent claiming the severance payments (Article 1751 of the Civil Code), stating that objections relating to the assessment of preliminary findings may not be relied on in cassation if they result in a request for a new determination of the facts.

Read also: Key rulings of 2023: An essential overview of agency law.

_________________________________

3. When is an influencer a commercial agent?

An innovative topic addressed in 2024 is whether the influencer can be qualified as a commercial agent. In the Court of Rome, Sez. Lavoro, 04/03/2024 no. 2615, the judge analysed a contract whereby a company entrusted a number of social media influencers with the promotion of its products. The plaintiff company, active in the online sale of dietary supplements, had entered into 'influencer marketing' contracts with various sportsmen and well-known personalities. Following an inspection carried out by ENASARCO, it was found that these influencers in fact carried out an activity similar to that of commercial agents: they permanently promoted the company's products on their social channels, received a fee proportionate to actual sales (by means of a customised discount code) and operated on an ongoing basis, issuing numerous periodic invoices.

The inspector had therefore reclassified these relationships as agency contracts within the meaning of Article 1742 of the Civil Code, requiring the company to pay social security contributions and related penalties. The company then brought an appeal against the ENASARCO assessment report.

The Court of Rome dismissed the appeal, stating that:

  • The activity of influencers was indeed stable and structured to promote sales via social networks;
  • The 'determined zone' coincided with the community of followers to whom the promotional content was addressed;
  • The autonomy stated in the contract and the short notice period did not exclude the agency nature of the relationship;
  • The fees were substantially commission-based, accruing in correspondence with successful orders and tracked through the use of the discount code offered by the influencer during his posts, which was then activated by the purchaser (follower) during purchase.

The judge also distinguished the figure of the influencers from that of the testimonials, who were also active in the company and were the subject of the ENASARCO inspection: while testimonials merely lent their image for promotional purposes for a fixed fee, without directly promoting sales, influencers carried out a genuine promotional activity, which was attributable to the agency contract.

The company was therefore ordered to pay approximately EUR 90,000 in social security contributions and penalties.

_________________________________

4. Unilateral changes to the agency contract.

The judgment of the Brescia Court of Appeal (12 January 2024, no. 324) focuses on two important aspects:

  • the legitimacy of the discipline provided for in the Collective Economic Agreements (CECs) that allows, under certain conditions, the unilateral modification of the agency contract by the principal;
  • the limitation represented by the duty of fairness and good faith in the performance of the contract.

In the case at hand, the principal had communicated a change in the mandate resulting from the loss of a client, which affected the commissions by less than 20%: it was therefore a 'medium-sized' change within the meaning of the applicable AEC, which could be implemented with simple notice without the need for the agent's consent.

The Court confirmed the full validity of the collective clause authorising unilateral variations of the mandate within the conventional limits, recalling how the jurisprudence of legitimacy considers permissible the attribution to the principal of the power to amend certain clauses of the contract (for example the territorial scope or the extent of the commissions), provided that such amendments are exercised in compliance with the principles of fairness and good faith (Articles 1175 and 1375 of the Civil Code).

Specifically, the change had been communicated with adequate notice, was justified by objective circumstances (withdrawal by the customer) and did not constitute a vexatious or arbitrary manoeuvre to the detriment of the agent. Therefore, the change was also considered lawful from the standpoint of respecting contractual good faith.

Read also: Unilateral changes to the agency contract by the principal.

_________________________________

5. The right to commissions.

5.1. Commissions and principal's fraud: independent relevance of omissive conduct.

Court of Appeal of Milan, Sec. II, judgment of 22 July 2024, no. 2162

The Court of Appeal of Milan clarified that the agent's right to obtain commissions (Article 1748 of the Civil Code) is autonomous with respect to the audit right provided for by theArticle 1749 of the Civil CodeThe exercise of the right of verification neither suspends nor interrupts the statute of limitations of the right to commission.

With reference to the plea of concealment, the court reiterated that the suspension of the statute of limitations under Art.Article 2941(8) of the Civil Code. requires conduct that renders the exercise of the right by the creditor impossible and not merely difficult. In the present case, the transmission by the principal of aggregate data - while preventing an analytical check - had not led to an impossibility of action, also because the agent had already expressed doubts during the performance of the contract.

Finally, the Court clarified that the omission of individual invoices in the commission reports does not in itself constitute wilful misconduct relevant to the suspension of the statute of limitations.

_________________________________

5.2. Commissions and agent's collection activities.

The Court of Cassation, by order No. 21312/2024, has ruled on the issue of the remuneration due to the agent for the activity of collecting the principal's receivables. In particular, it reiterated the principle, already stated in previous decisions (Cass. no. 17572/2020; Cass. no. 21079/2013), according to which:

  • If the collection activity is foreseen from the beginning of the relationship, the relevant remuneration is presumed to be included in the agreed commission, without the agent being entitled to any further independent remuneration;
  • If, on the other hand, the task of collection is entrusted subsequently, it constitutes an additional ancillary service to the original contract and must be compensated separately, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

The Court also clarified that the Collective Economic Agreement (A.E.C. 2002 and 2009) provides for additional remuneration for collection activities only when there is also assumption of responsibility for accounting errors by the agent.

In the case under consideration, the Court of Appeal of Genoa had awarded the agent a separate fee for the collection activity, finding that the inclusion in the commission set forth in the individual contract was unlawful. The Court of Cassation overturned the judgment, noting that the territorial court had not correctly applied the above-mentioned principles of law: it should have first ascertained whether the collection assignment was envisaged from the outset and whether the agent had assumed an accounting responsibility, before recognising the right to an additional fee.

Read also: Agent's right to commission on long-term contracts.

_________________________________

5.3. Commissions outside the area and on indirect business.

Brescia Court of Appeal, 12 January 2024, no. 324

The judgement rejected the agent's claim for the recognition of indirect commissions for sales made in his area without having been communicated to him, finding that the allegations were generic and that the conditions required by Art. 1748(3) of the Civil Code had not been proved. The Court upheld the rejection of the order for production ex Article 210 c.p.c. (editor's note: probably based on theArticle 1749 of the Civil Codeeven if not expressly referred to), concerning commission statements and accounting records, pointing out their merely exploratory nature in the absence of precise allegations on the business allegedly diverted.

Read also: Agent's right to commissions on business concluded after termination of the relationship.

_________________________________

6. Access to the principal's documents and books.

The agent, during the course of the relationship, has the right to be informed of the volume of business and the progress of sales concerning him (Art. 1749 of the Civil Code), as well as to receive a periodic commission statement. However, outside of these specific obligations, access to the principal's books does not constitute an unconditional right. Recent case law has marked precise limits.

Cass. sec. II, ord. 10 July 2024, no. 18942

The agent's right to access the principal's documentation pursuant to Art. 1749 of the Civil Code presupposes the demonstration of a specific interest in the action, which is closely linked to the exercise of pecuniary rights arising from the agency contract. Such right does not exist automatically after the termination of the relationship: it is the agent's burden to allege and prove that the requested documentation is necessary to verify its right to commissions accrued on business concluded subsequently, pursuant to Art. 1748(3) of the Civil Code. In the absence of such an allegation, the agent cannot be entitled to the production of the documents.

(Civil cassation, Sec. II, 10 July 2024, no. 18942)

As to access to the documents pursuant to Art. 1749 of the Civil Code, the Court clarified that the agent is entitled to obtain copies of the principal's documents only if it demonstrates a concrete interest in the ascertainment of patrimonial rights (e.g. commissions) still due. If the relationship has ended without any remaining commission claims, the agent is not entitled to the production of the documents.

Read also: The agent's right to inspect the principal's books.

_________________________________

7. Dissolution of the contract.

7.1. Dissolution for just cause.

The Court of Appeal of Milan, with decision No. 2251/2024, confirmed the existence of just cause for termination of the agency contract exercised by the principal, highlighting the breach of the fiduciary bond by the agent. In particular, the Court considered arbitrary and contrary to the principles of good faith and fairness the contractual clause imposed by the agent on the sub-agents (the so-called entry fee of €19,000.00), which was not justified by objective requirements, contractual practices or proven economic needs. According to the judges, the agent's conduct - consisting in introducing penalising conditions without prior discussion with the principal and in the absence of demonstrable benefits for the agents involved - constituted conduct capable of justifying termination ex Article 2119 of the Civil Codealso applicable by analogy to the agency contract.

_________________________________

7.2. Dissolution by mutual consent.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Order No. 22138 of 6 August 2024, reaffirmed that, in the matter of an agency contract, early termination by mutual consent is admissible, even in the presence of a clause requiring the written form for contractual modifications. When the contract does not require such form under penalty of nullity, the parties may also tacitly renounce it, provided that they behave unequivocally and in a manner inconsistent with their intention to maintain it.

In the decided case, the common will to anticipate the termination of the relationship was inferred from several significant elements: the communication to the social security agency with the new termination date, the secondment of a new agent in the already assigned area, and the absence of objections from the company. These conducts were considered sufficient to prove a consensual termination, effective even in the absence of a formal agreement.

_________________________________

8. Express termination clause in agency contracts.

In 2024 there is also a contrast in case law on the subject of express termination clauses.

Comparing Supreme Court Ordinance No. 13792/2024 (Sec. II, 17 May 2024) and Ordinance No. 12865/2024 (Sec. II, 10 May 2024), a different approach emerges as to whether or not the gravity of the non-performance must be ascertained for the purpose of automatic termination of the contract.

In particular:

  • Order No. 13792/2024 reiterated that, in the presence of a sufficiently typified express termination clause, the court does not have to make any independent assessment of the seriousness of the fact within the meaning of Art.Article 1455 of the Civil Code.It is sufficient to verify that the contemplated breach has occurred. In the agency contract examined, the clause expressly prohibited the agent from dealing even indirectly with business for competitors. The Supreme Court added that, pursuant to art.Article 1228 of the Civil Codethe agent is also liable for acts performed by the chosen sub-agent without due diligence, since this is a matter of contractual liability. Thus, the sub-agent's breach of contract (attempt to conclude a contract with a competitor) was imputed to the agent, without it being necessary to ascertain the further seriousness of the act.
  • Ordinance No. 12865/2024, on the other hand, ruled that in the presence of a generic or merely stylistic express termination clause, the court must nonetheless ascertain the seriousness of the non-performance pursuant to Article 1455 of the Civil Code. In that case, the clause provided for the possibility of terminating the contract in connection with the failure to achieve sales results, without clear parameters. The Supreme Court therefore required not only proof of the fact, but also the assessment of its actual impact on the contractual balance.

Read also: Minimum turnover clause in the agency contract.

_________________________________

9. Allowance for lack of notice.

With Order No. 6971/2024, the Court of Cassation confirmed in full what had been ruled at first instance by the Court of Milan (Sentence No. 12344/2017) and subsequently by the Court of Appeal, recognising that the indemnity in lieu of notice is due even in the event of termination of the relationship by the agent, if the termination is not preceded by compliance with the minimum term provided for by the 'Article 1750 of the Civil Code

The Supreme Court also reiterated that, in the absence of an express agreement or formal reference, the Collective Economic Agreements (CECs) do not automatically apply to the contract, even where it qualifies as an agency. Any supplementary application of AECs in the absence of a specific reference in the contractual text or in the conduct of the parties is therefore excluded.

Of particular importance is the methodology adopted by the Court for the quantification of the indemnity in lieu of notice, which the Court of Cassation implicitly held to be correct, since it was not the subject of a well-founded appeal. In detail, the Court:

  • found that the contractual relationship had been in place from June 2008 to February 2012, and that therefore more than three and a half years had elapsed at the time of termination;
  • It therefore ruled that, pursuant to Article 1750(3) of the Civil Code, the notice period should have been six months, whereas only three months had been granted;
  • Consequently, it recognised the right to three months' compensation in lieu.

For the purposes of the calculation, an objective criterion based on the monthly average of the commissions received was used, deduced from the accounting documents on file and not specifically contested by the counterparty. In particular:

  • the average of the commissions received in the two-year period preceding the termination was taken;
  • this average was multiplied by 3 months, equivalent to the notice period not observed;
  • the total amount recognised under this heading was €16,500.00, as per the detailed statements on file.

This criterion is directly based on the rationale of Art. 1750 of the Civil Code, which, while not specifying the calculation formula, implies that the value of the indemnity must economically compensate for the loss of notice, typically identified in the loss of average commission income.

Read also: Early termination of an agency contract. How is the indemnity for lack of notice calculated?

_________________________________

10. Severance pay.

10.1. Burden of proof and 1751 Civil Code.

With Order No. 13008 of 13 May 2024, the Court of Cassation intervened on the subject of severance pay pursuant to Article 1751 of the Italian Civil Code, overturning the judgment of the Brescia Court of Appeal in a case not governed by a Collective Economic Agreement.

The Court reiterated that, in the absence of AEC, the prerequisites set forth in Article 1751 of the Civil Code must be ascertained with particular rigour, since they are normative and not presumptive conditions. It is therefore necessary to verify, on the basis of the available evidence provided by the agent, both the actual increase in customers or the development of business, and the permanence, after the termination of the relationship, of substantial advantages for the principal.

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal had rejected the appellant's complaints, stating that the criticisms of the first instance judgement and of the court-appointed expert's report were generic, and that the CTU's calculations had not been specifically contested. The Court of Cassation, on the other hand, emphasised that the grievance concerned not the correctness of the calculations, but the very absence of the legal prerequisites for the recognition of the indemnity. This is an assessment that is the sole responsibility of the judge and cannot be delegated to the technical consultant, whose role is limited to supporting the judge in ascertaining the facts, not to deciding on the entitlement.

The appeal decision was therefore overturned on the grounds that the grounds were only apparent: the territorial court did not address the real issues raised by the appellant and omitted any independent verification of the entitlement to the indemnity, basing its conviction solely on the expert's report and thus violating the division of competences between the judge and the court-appointed expert.

Read also: Agent's severance pay. How is it calculated if AEC does not apply?

_________________________________

10.2. AEC applicability and exclusion.

With Order No. 24121 of 9 September 2024, the Court of Cassation ruled on the subject of termination indemnity pursuant to Article 1751 of the Civil Code, clarifying the interplay between individual agency contracts and the Collective Economic Agreement (CEC).

In the case examined, the contract expressly referred to the AEC of the industrial sector, but subordinated the payment of the indemnity to the existence of the conditions set forth in Article 1751 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeal of Rome, accepting this approach, denied the indemnity to the agent for lack of the legal prerequisites (new clientele or development of business with persistent benefits for the principal), deeming the flat-rate criteria of the AEC inapplicable.

The Supreme Court held that the agent's appeal was inadmissible, confirming the territorial court's interpretation: when the agency contract refers to Article 1751 of the Civil Code as the basis of the right to the indemnity, the more favourable criteria of the AEC do not automatically apply. In the absence of a clause fully transposing the collective discipline, the conditions of the indemnity must be ascertained according to the strict requirements of the law.

The decision reaffirms that the application of AECs cannot disregard the parties' bargaining will and that the ascertainment of the right to the indemnity is a matter for the judge, who cannot infer from contractual automatisms if they are not expressly provided for.

Read also: Agency agreement and waiver in peius of the AEC.

_________________________________

11. Post-contractual covenant not to compete.

The non-compete agreement binding the agent after termination of the relationship is expressly governed by theArticle 1751-bis of the Civil Code. It must be in writing, may extend to a maximum of two years and entitles the agent to an additional indemnity.

With Ordinance No. 23331 of 29 August 2024, the Supreme Court of Cassation returns to rule on the nature and legal regime of the non-competition covenant entered into in the context of an agency contract, pursuant to Article 1751-bis of the Italian Civil Code, dwelling in particular on the derogability of the onerousness requirement and on the modalities of payment of the indemnity.

According to the Supreme Court, the covenant not to compete may be validly entered into even in the absence of a specifically determined and separate consideration, since Article 1751-bis of the Civil Code does not expressly provide for a sanction of nullity in the event of non-compensation. In fact, the statutory provision entrusts the quantification of the indemnity to the negotiation between the parties, having regard to the collective economic agreements, the duration (maximum two years) of the bond, the nature of the contract and the termination indemnity. Where there is no agreement, it is the judge who must determine it on an equitable basis.

In the case at hand, an agent challenged the validity of a clause providing for the payment of the indemnity for the covenant not to compete by means of advances paid during the term of the agreement, as a percentage of the commissions, rather than at the time of its termination. The Court of Appeal of Trieste had held this method to be legitimate, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the indemnity should be of a non-commission nature and independent of the compensation accrued during the term of the contract.

The Supreme Court confirms the approach of the judges of merit, holding that, if the agreement is derogable in the an, it is a fortiori so in the quomodo: the parties may therefore agree on forms of payment also different from the traditional ones, including instalment modes or integrated in the periodic fees, provided that a possible final settlement is possible. There is therefore no invalidity of the clause providing for the advance payment of the consideration, possibly also in the form of a commission, if this is done in compliance with the overall contractual balance.

The order is in line with the orientation already traced by Court of Cassation nos. 12127/2015 and 13706/2017, according to which the regulation of Article 1751-bis of the Civil Code. - introduced byArticle 23 L. 422/2000 - does not have an imperative nature nor does it protect general public interests, but merely defines a framework that can be derogated from by agreement. The result is a broad freedom of negotiation in structuring the covenant, also in terms of its remuneration.

Read also: The obligation of exclusivity and the covenant not to compete in the dealer agreement.

_________________________________

12. Damages in agency disputes.

In addition to commissions and indemnities, the agent sometimes claims damages for wrongful conduct of the principal. Typical situations include: wrongful termination of the contract (in addition to the lack of notice already indemnified), loss of earnings for commissions lost due to the principal's acts, or damage to the agent's professional image.

However, jurisprudence has tended to be restrictive in recognising further compensation in order to avoid duplication with the protections already provided for. For instance, in Civil Cass. 13792/2024 the agent had claimed a large compensation (almost EUR 1.95 million) for lost profits corresponding to future earnings lost due to the termination of the relationship. However, the legitimacy of the termination due to the agent's own breach having been established, the claim for damages was rejected outright. More generally, if the termination of the relationship has lawfully taken place (with notice, or for just cause attributable to the agent), the agent cannot claim any compensation beyond the contractual indemnities provided for.

_________________________________

13. Business intermediary and commercial agent: operational differences.

The case law of 2024 confirms well-established criteria in the qualification of agency relationships, clearly reaffirming the distinction from business procuring. In particular, it recalls the principle according to which agency is characterised by the continuity and stability of the promotional activity and the organised insertion of the agent into the principal's network, as opposed to the occasional and occasional nature of the business procurer.

Recent case law (Trib. Rome 2024 no. 2615; Cass. 16565/2020; Cass. 35740/2022) reiterates that the agency contract is distinguished by the continuity and stability of the promotional activity in favour of the principal, in a given area or sector, with remuneration mainly on commission and possible exclusive rights. The agent operates autonomously but on a regular basis, accounting for the activity performed.

On the contrary, the business intermediary performs an occasional activity, without a stable obligation or insertion in the principal's organisation, limiting himself to reporting business on an occasional basis (see Court of Cassation 19828/2013; Court of Cassation 13629/2005).

The recent order Cass. 10656/2024 confirms this picture, stating that the continuity of the activity and the stability of the collaboration are sufficient elements to qualify the relationship as agency. In the decided case, the appellant company argued that there was a lack of proof of a real obligation to promote on the part of the collaborators. However, the Court held that the obligation to act can be inferred from the structure and stable organisation of the relationship: it is not necessary to isolate proof of a separate legal bond, since stability and inclusion in the principal's network are already typical indications of an agency contract.

Read also: The scientific informant: employee, agent or self-employed?

_________________________________

14. Relationship between direct home sales agents and agency contract.

(Court of Appeal of Rome, Labour Section, 23 February 2024, no. 791)

The Court ruled that an agency relationship did not exist between the principal and the direct selling agents and annulled the inspection report and the obligation to pay social security contributions.

Confirmed principles: The activity of the direct home sales agent, regulated by the Law No. 173/2005does not automatically constitute an agency contract.Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2012 specifies that, for the configurability of an agency contract in doorstep selling, the presence of:

  • a binding contractual obligation to engage in promotional activities;
  • territorial exclusivity;
  • constraints on the duration of the service.

In the concrete case (Judgment No. 791/2024), the Court noted that:

  • the letters of appointment did not include any obligation to promote;
  • sales representatives operated freely, without area allocation and without minimum sales targets;
  • it was possible to interrupt the activity at any time, without notice or penalty;
  • there was no real territorial exclusivity, but only a generic prohibition of competition.

Further elements:

  • The activity was carried out on the basis of simple sales authorisations and the remuneration was exclusively linked to the orders actually concluded.
  • The internal logistical planning of the principal (organisation of branches, means of delivery) was not sufficient to constitute a contractual obligation of promotional activity on the part of the agent.

Read also: Commercial agent: responsible or owner of the data processing?

_________________________________

15. The applicable procedure: ordinary or labour?

The Court of Cassation (Cass. civ., Sec. lavoro, Ord., 11 September 2024, no. 26722), ruling on a regulation of jurisdiction, has established that in disputes concerning an agency contract it is necessary to have regard to the substantive nature of the relationship and not to its formal header. In the present case, although the contract was signed by a company, the activity was carried out personally and without autonomous entrepreneurial organisation by the agent. The functional competence of the labour court was therefore recognised pursuant to Art.Article 409(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure., overturning the ruling that had declined jurisdiction in favour of the ordinary courts.

Read also: Rito lavoro: agent natural person and legal entity.

_________________________________

16. Waiver of jurisdiction clause in agency contract.

In Order No. 15389/2024, the United Sections of the Supreme Court ruled on the validity and effectiveness of a contractual waiver of jurisdiction clause contained in an international agency contract. In the case at hand, the contract attributed exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Dubai. The Court of Lucca had upheld the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Italian principal; the Court of Appeal of Florence, on the other hand, had reformed the case and had found Italian jurisdiction to exist, emphasising the conduct of the foreign agent who had acted in Italy.

The United Sections upheld the appeal, reaffirming that a clause conferring jurisdiction, validly stipulated and evidenced in writing pursuant to Art.Article 4(2), Law 218/1995The application before the Italian court is of an exclusive and binding nature, unless the parties have expressly provided for the optional nature of the option. The mere bringing of the application before the Italian court by the foreign agent does not override the contractual exception

_____________________________