Food & Drink

Vantiamo una vasta esperienza in materia di politiche agro-alimentari. I nostri clienti rappresentano l’intera filiera agro-alimentare, dai produttori primari ai fornitori di fattori della produzione, dai produttori e rivenditori di alimenti alle varie categorie di consumatori.

Ci occupiamo di diritto alimentare comunitario e nazionale, così come di diritto alimentare internazionale, anche a livello di OMC e Codex Alimentarius. Abbiamo a che fare con le principali istituzioni dell’Unione Europea e dell’OMC in materia di accesso al mercato, accordi commerciali regionali, quali accordi sugli aspetti commerciali dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale, le misure sanitarie e fitosanitarie e le barriere tecniche al commercio.

Abbiamo collaborato, e ci siamo confrontati, con autorità statali e regolamentari. A livello nazionale, ci siamo occupati di Organizzazioni Comuni del Mercato, autorizzazioni di prodotti, uso di pesticidi, confezionamento ed etichettatura.

  • Comunicati Stampa
  • Articoli
  • Newsletter
Krause Holdings Inc.
Fusioni & Acquisizioni, Private Equity - Corporate & Commercial

Campari ha siglato un accordo per la vendita del 100% del capitale sociale di Enrico Serafino – cantina vinicola specializzata nella coltivazione delle uve e nella vinificazione di vini fermi e spumanti – a Krause Holdings, holding con investimenti diversificati di proprietà di Kyle J. Krause – per un importo pari a 6,1 milioni di euro. Il business venduto comprende il marchio Enrico Serafino, nonché i vigneti, gli impianti per la vinificazione e la produzione, il magazzino e l’attivo immobiliare.

Il closing dell’operazione è previsto per il 30 giugno prossimo.

Nell’operazione, NCTM Studio Legale ha assistito Krause Holdings Inc., nelle persone degli equity partner Raffaele Caldarone e Christian Mocellin e del senior associate Alessandro Vespa.

Campari è stata assistita da Clifford Chance, con un team composto dal socio Paolo Sersale e dal senior associate Filippo Isacco, e da Mediobanca.

Diritto Amministrativo, Pubblico Comunitario

The Italian government has submitted to Brussels the draft decrees for the introduction of an obligation to indicate the origin of certain the raw materials.[1] For rice, the place of cultivation, processing and packaging must be indicated, while for wheat, the place of wheat cultivation and the sowing of the seeds must be indicated. The article reviews the draft decrees submitted by the Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies, to the Commission for approval prior to implementation.

Italy is the biggest producer of rice in Europe. The land dedicated to cultivation is 234.300 hectares, there are more than 140 varieties of rice and about 1.500.000 tonnes is produced every year. There are more than 4,265 rice companies in the supply chain.

The rice sector has been in crisis since the introduction of the EU’s Everything But Arms trade initiative. Everything but Arms allows imports into the EU from least developed countries tariff free and without quantitative restrictions. This has given rise to a massive increase in imports of Rice from Vietnam and Cambodia resulting in a significant drop in market prices of some varieties of rice and, consequently, a reduction – in 2014 – of the cultivation of certain types of varieties using over 12,000 hectares.

To try and counter the imports producers have been calling for better labelling of foodstuffs containing rice so as to indicate to consumers the true origin of the raw materials. The producers hope that consumers will tend to purchase products with Italian rice rather than imported rice.

Therefore, the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies has declared –in the event the European Commission does not approve the above mentioned decree – that it is ready to renew the request of the general safeguard clause[2] pursuant to article 22 of the Regulation EU no. 978/2012[3].

In addition to rice Italy wishes to address the use of wheat in processed foods and in particular pasta. In particular, the decree provides that processed wheat products like pasta produced in Italy must bear on the label the following information:

  1. country of wheat cultivation: the name of the country in which the wheat is grown;
  2. country of milling: name of the country where the grain was ground.

If the above mentioned operations occur in the territory of several countries, it may be used – depending on the country of origin – the following wording: EU countries, non EU countries, EU countries and non-EU countries.

If durum wheat is cultivated for at least 50% in one country, such as Italy, the term “Italy and other EU and / or non-EU countries” may be used.

Italy has already introduced origin labelling for milk used in milk products. Introducing the origin labelling measure in April 2017, the Italian Minister for Agricultural Policies, Maurizio Martina, said that, “Italy is working to introduce mandatory information on the origin of milk including as a raw material in dairy products. The Commission is addressing finally our request on labelling. We have had a dossier open for months now with the Commission on a 100% Italian label and we are hoping for faster action”. [4]

The decrees requiring the labelling of origin of the raw materials are to be applied on an experimental basis. This allows Italy to overcome certain legal difficulties in the EU’s food labelling law set out in Regulation EU no. 1169/2011.

The contents of the draft decree on rice has not been shared with the referring industrial association, namely AIRI –Association Industries Italian Rice Producers. In fact, pursuant to Italian law no. 180/2011 “any law which introduces additional burdens for business may be elaborated without an adequate analysis of impact made by the responsible Ministry and without adequately involving the category associations.”

An adequate analysis according to Italian law no. 180/2011 would suggest that the origin label for wheat and rice in Italy does not provide particularly useful suggestions for the consumers since the duty will affect only the products sell in Italy, not even the products sell abroad.

On the other hand, the duty of labelling will be an additional cost for the rice and wheat companies. The companies which will not want use the origin label for the foreign market will have to differentiate the labels and the storages.

In conclusion, it remains to be seen if the European Commission approves the new measures. It is only if the decrees get clearance from Brussels will Italy be able to implement them.




[1] Namely “Schema di Decreto interministeriale concernente l’indicazione dell’origine in etichetta del grano duro per le paste di semola di grano duro, in attuazione del regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011, relativo alla fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti ai consumatori.” And “Schema di Decreto interministeriale concernente l’indicazione dell’origine in etichetta del riso, in attuazione del regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011, relativo alla fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti ai consumatori”.

[2] See the official website of the Italian Minister of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (Mipaaf) for more.

[3] According to article 22 “1. Where a product originating in a beneficiary country of any of the preferential arrangements referred to in Article 1(2), is imported in volumes and/or at prices which cause, or threaten to cause, serious difficulties to Union producers of like or directly competing products, normal Common Customs Tariff duties on that product may be reintroduced.”

[4] From the speech held by the Italian Minister Maurizio Martina on the occasion of the ufficial inauguration ceremony of “TuttoFood” in Milan on 8-11 March.

Corporate & Commercial - International Trade & Customs

The EU recognises as Geographical Indications many individual products that go to make up the Mediterranean Diet. Or, to reflect the first Recital of the Union’s GI law which provides for the protection of GIs, the EU law is aimed at recognising and protecting the living cultural and gastronomic heritage of Union food producers.

UNESCO goes further. UNESCO recognises the much wider concept of the Mediterranean Diet as part of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The group of countries promoting this initiative include 6 EU Member States (Cyprus, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal) as well as Morocco.

Why does the EU and UNESCO give attention to the Mediterranean diet? The answer lies in understanding the term Diet. Today we often associate the word diet with sacrifice and the means to lose or control weight. This diminishes the original sense of the word. Thus it needs to be rescued from this diminished interpretation and given its full meaning.

Diet comes from the Greek diaita or ‘way of life’. As the UNESCO listing says:

The Mediterranean diet is characterized by a nutritional model that has remained constant over time and space, consisting mainly of olive oil, cereals, fresh or dried fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount of fish, dairy and meat, and many condiments and spices, all accompanied by wine or infusions, always respecting beliefs of each community.

It promotes social interaction, since communal meals are the cornerstone of social customs and festive events. It has given rise to a considerable body of knowledge, songs, maxims, tales and legends.

What has the Mediterranean Diet have to do with the law? And why should lawyers think about this wider cultural aspect of the Mediterranean diet when thinking about giving information to consumers? It comes down to thinking about what the law can and cannot do. And where the law fits into our common Mediterranean or European culture.

The law needs to recognise where it stands in the order of our civilisation. The law has a key role to play. But the law can never capture the complexities of the Mediterranean Diet. Why? Why because the law is only one part of our European or Mediterranean cultural heritage. And because it is only a part, it can never capture the whole.

But the law can do harm. And it can do most harm when it introduces new norms that do not respect the object and purpose of the law itself and the culture in which that law operates. The Traffic Light Labelling debate must be seen in this wider context.

There is general agreement that consumers must be informed so that they can make informed choices. But this general agreement becomes more nuanced or might even be said to break up when we consider how the consumer should be informed: on the label of a product or through education. Should the law merely inform the consumer in a passive manner or should the law be used to gently push or nudge the consumer in a certain direction or, going even further, should the law dictate certain actions and/or even prohibit certain foods.

The question becomes more difficult again when one considers what the consumer should be informed about. Do we just need to know about the quantities of calories and fats and proteins or do we need to know about the impacts of foods on our physical and mental well-being?

The basic EU law on the provision of information to consumers is Regulation 1169/2011. It provides that that all foods must be presented to the consumer with nutritional information. And that this nutritional information must be presented in a prescribed and neutral manner.

The question today is whether the law should abandon that neutrality and colour code the nutritional label such that those foods with high values for fats or salts or calories should have a red tagged beside them and those with low values a green colour tagged beside them and those in the middle a yellow colour This is the essence of traffic light labelling. Red for stop, green for go, and yellow/amber for take care.

The idea of traffic light labelling is that the consumer would be gently nudged into not purchasing products with lots of reds and to go for the products with lots of greens. If the EU were to introduce traffic light labelling rules it would be moving away from the neutrality of nutritional labelling which has been the basis of the law to date.

The problem is that many of the products that are part of the Mediterranean Diet would end up red. This would include olive oils to cheeses to pastas. And yet the Mediterranean Diet is known for the health and well being it brings us. It is ‘good’ nutrition in the widest sense of the meaning of the word diet.

Does traffic light labelling have the effect of nudging the consumer? Yes, it does. An on-line survey carries out by a Statale students, Valentina Cerrigone, mainly in Ireland and the UK showed that when confronted with a traffic light label showing Red for Fats, 59% said it was unhealthy. On this basis, the assumption is that they would tend not to purchase this product. So, if the purpose of the traffic light labelling is to nudge the consumer to make a particular choice, it works.

However, when these same consumers where shown that the product in question was extra virgin Olive Oil, 51% said they would change their minds. So, consumer who have time to look around and evaluate the nature of the ‘red’, they can overcome the ‘nudge’ and make different choices. But how much time do consumers have. The survey showed that the vast majority of consumers spend very short times looking. Colours make it easier to see. And this is the essence of nudging.

Clearly the introduction of traffic light labelling might do harm to the Mediterranean diet. Should the law be used to let this happen when it is known that the diet and the products that make it up contribute to one of the most healthy and long lived life styles. This is particularly so when it can be strongly argued that traffic light labelling is not in line with the law. The law prohibits health claims if they are not tested and true and approved by the appropriate competent authority. The use of health claims in relation to foods is severely restricted. The very idea of traffic light labelling is that Green is healthy and Red unhealthy. So in that sense the system is a health claim.

Care must be taken in how the law is used. And the law must not be used to diminish the law itself and the culture in which that law must operate. Ways other than the traffic light labelling must be found to answer the how and the what of food labelling law.

Diritto Amministrativo, Pubblico Comunitario - International Trade & Customs - Internazionalizzazione

On 13 March the Commission has adopted a report (hereinafter, the “Report”) on the mandatory labelling of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration for alcoholic beverages. The Commissioner for Health and Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, said: “This report supports the right of people in the European Union to be fully informed about what they drink. Moreover, it does not identify any objective grounds justifying the absence of the list of ingredients and nutrition information on alcoholic beverages. The expansion of voluntary initiatives from the sector has already been ongoing and is brought to the fore in the report”.

This Report responds to the obligation set for the Commission by Article 16(4) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. The Regulation establishes the basis for a high level of consumer protection in relation to food information, ensuring that consumers are not misled by food labels and can make informed choices.

Under the current rules, unlike for other foods, the indication of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration is not mandatory for alcoholic beverages. With the nutrition declaration having become mandatory for the vast majority of pre-packed food as of 13 December 2016, the particular situation of alcoholic beverages is now even more salient. European consumers have therefore reduced access to the nutrition declaration and to the list of ingredients with the exception of ingredients which may have an allergenic effect.

Therefore, consumers are informed only when a substance or a product, amongst those listed in the Regulation as the most common allergens, is present in alcoholic beverages, like sulphites that are often added to wine.

However, other food ingredients which were not considered for the listing of substances that could trigger allergic reactions in certain groups of consumers are not in the Regulation and would therefore not be present on the label of alcoholic beverages due to the absence of a list of ingredients.

This approach does not seem to be entirely suitable given the recognition of the importance of information and the rights of citizens to be adequately informed of what they consume.

Regarding nutritional labelling, recital 42 of the Regulation encourages food business operators to provide on a voluntary basis the information contained in the nutrition declaration for foods such as alcoholic beverages for which the possibility should be given to declare only limited elements of the nutrition declaration.

Another EU provision on the labelling of alcoholic beverages is set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 which provides on exhaustive set of technical standards which fully cover all oenological practices, manufacturing methods and means of presentation and labelling of wines.

In view of the lack of legal action in this area, some Member States have adopted national rules requesting partial indication of ingredients for certain alcoholic drinks. Even if the provisions for the nutrition declaration are fully harmonised, some Member States are also notifying national measures addressing the nutrition declaration for alcoholic beverages. Such behaviour contributes to an increased risk of market fragmentation.

The Report shows that the sector is more and more prepared to provide responses to consumers’ expectation to know what they are drinking. This is demonstrated by the expansion of concerted or independent voluntary initiatives developed and implemented by the sector to provide consumers with information on the list of ingredients, the energy value and/or the full nutrition declaration on or off label. It has to be particularly noted that a rising number of alcoholic beverages present on the EU market already bear the full nutrition declaration.

On the basis the Report, the EU alcoholic drinks industry should propose, within a year, a harmonised approach aiming to provide consumers with information about the ingredients present in alcoholic beverages and the nutritional value of alcoholic beverages. This proposal will be assessed by the Commission. Should the Commission consider the self-regulatory approached proposed by the industry as unsatisfactory, it would then launch an impact assessment to review further available options in line with Better Regulation principles.

In line with the need of transparency on foodstuffs, the European Parliament adopted on 15 March its position on the new Regulation on Official Controls (hereinafter, the “OC Regulation”), proposed by the European Commission to increase Member States’ ability to prevent, eliminate or reduce health risks to humans, animals and plants. The OC Regulation provides a package of measures that will strengthen the enforcement of health and safety standards as an international reference for integrated rules covering the whole agri-food chain.

The new rules aim at modernising and simplifying the European control system to ensure that food in the European Union is safe along the entire agri-food chain. They overhaul the current system and will provide a single framework for all official controls.

From one hand, EU citizens will benefit from safer products and more effective and more transparency on how controls are carried out to ensure food safety and high standards for plant health, animal health and welfare and to prevent the fraud. From another hand, businesses and authorities will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and more efficient processes.

Official controls, undertaken by competent authorities in each Member State, serve to check whether these rules are correctly implemented. It consists in checks performed by Member States in order to verify that businesses comply with agri-food chain rules. These rules cover the safety and quality of food and feed and also apply to agri-food chain products entering the EU from third countries and via the Internet. Consequently, e-commerce must be part of official controls. The OC Regulation aims to tackle food fraud. This includes checking compliance against marketing standards for agricultural products. Financial penalties for fraud will need to reflect the expected economic gain or a percentage of the turnover made by fraudulent operator.

The previous regulation, adopted in 2004, initiated the integration of rules on official controls. The OC Regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2013, takes it further in providing comprehensive risk-based control rules along the agri-food chain. This will allow national authorities to put their resources where they are most needed.

The OC Regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU. The rules will be gradually phased in to give EU countries and industry the time to adapt.


La legge portuale italiana vieta ad un operatore la gestione di più aree demaniali aventi ad oggetto la stessa attività di impresa in un medesimo porto. Analizziamo come questo divieto potrebbe essere stato modificato a seguito della recente riforma del 2016.

Proseguiamo ad esaminare una recente sentenza del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Toscana, la quale ha chiarito gli obblighi gravanti sull’Amministrazione Pubblica in caso di espropriazione di aree private nei porti italiani.

La recente estensione del campo di applicazione del Regolamento generale di esenzione per categoria (2014) alla concessione di aiuti di stato a porti ed aeroporti dell’UE ci induce a ricordare due recenti sentenze della Corte di Giustizia in merito agli aiuti di Stato nel settore marittimo e – in particolare – alla compensazione degli obblighi di servizio pubblico alle imprese incaricate della gestione di servizi d’interesse economico generale.

Poi, analizziamo due sentenze, provenienti da Regno Unito e Spagna, riguardanti l’applicazione di due importanti convenzioni internazionali nell’ambito de trasporti internazionali, le Hague-Visby Rules e la CMR. La sentenza inglese conferma che la mancata materiale emissione di una polizza di carico non rileva al fine di escludere l’applicabilità della normativa uniforme, mentre la sentenza spagnola ci fornisce una definizione di “colpa parificata a dolo” ai fini dell’esclusione del limite di responsabilità vettoriale.

Anche la Corte di Cassazione italiana ha emesso due interessanti sentenze in materia di trasporti. La Suprema Corte italiana ha negato al portatore della polizza di carico la titolarità ad agire nei confronti di un vettore marittimo per danni alla merce, in caso di mancata girata della polizza di carico dal ricevitore al portatore, e ha considerato uno “scambio di contenitori” quale ipotesi di colpa grave del vettore stradale.

Infine, analizziamo una sentenza della Commissione Tributaria di Roma, relativa alla IRESA, la tassa sul rumore negli aeroporti italiani. Tale sentenza, in considerazione del fatto che la Regione Lazio ha disatteso i principi e le finalità previsti dalla normativa nazionale ed europea relativi alla destinazione del gettito derivante dall’imposta, ha concluso per la disapplicazione dell’IRESA per come prevista dalla normativa regionale.

Alberto Rossi

There’s a fair European wind blowing

Probably the most important outcome of the French election is not so much the actual electoral defeat of the National Front but the decision of that party to remove from its policy programme the idea of withdrawing from the Euro and promoting a referendum on Frexit. In other words, those parties which have based their political offer to the electorate on the negative impact of globalization and the hard impact of immigration, no longer see the solution as the break-up of the EU.

The same in happening in the Netherlands and even in the UK where the May government is promoting the need to address the negative aspects of globalization and migration in a substantive manner and not long saying that Brexit itself is the answer.

This is a window of opportunity that the EU must embrace. The underlying issues of migration and globalization must be addressed. But if they are addressed in a satisfactory manner the EU itself is not being challenged. There is a recognition in France and in the Netherlands, and even in Germany given the results in the recent Lander elections among the vast majority of the electorate that the EU remains a valid project and that the solutions are best found within its remit.

If Macron and Merkel can get together with the Italy and Spain, much can be done. From an insider’s point of view the only possible hiccup in catching this favourable wind is the capacity of the Commission to recognize it.


Alitalia: amministrazione straordinaria secondo round
Con decreto del Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (MISE) del 2 maggio 2017 è stata disposta la procedura di amministrazione straordinaria di Alitalia Società Aerea Italiana S.p.A. ai sensi del d.l. n. 347/2003 (c.d. legge Marzano) e con sentenza del Tribunale di Civitavecchia dell’11 maggio 2017 è stato dichiarato lo stato di insolvenza.

Il Tribunale può inserire in sede di omologazione clausole modificative della proposta di concordato?
La Cassazione 3 aprile 2017, n. 8632 ha stabilito che il decreto di omologazione può essere reclamato, anche in assenza di opposizioni, in relazione ad addizioni estranee alla proposta introdotte d’imperio dal Tribunale, che non rappresentino semplici formule organizzative della fase di esecuzione del concordato.

La banca risponde del danno causato alla società dagli amministratori per ricorso abusivo al credito?
La Cassazione 20 aprile 2017, n. 9983 conferma un proprio precedente secondo cui la banca può essere ritenuta responsabile per concorso nell’illecito, distinguendo la fattispecie da quella della concessione abusiva di credito.

Cause di ineleggibilità e decadenza del sindaco professionista in uno studio associato
Ai sensi dell’art. 2399, lett. c), c.c. è ineleggibile, e se eletto decade dall’ufficio, il sindaco che intrattiene con la società o sue controllate rapporti di natura patrimoniale che ne compromettano l’indipendenza. Ci si interroga se il caso in cui il sindaco sia parte di uno studio associato che presta attività di consulenza alla medesima società integri l’ipotesi prevista dalla legge. Sebbene il quesito sia risolto tendenzialmente in senso affermativo, permangono tuttavia dubbi circa i criteri adottati dalla Corte di Cassazione al fine di determinare i casi in cui, concretamente, l’indipendenza del sindaco possa dirsi compromessa.

La portata della delega gestoria nelle s.r.l.: contenuto e limiti
La Suprema Corte, con sentenza n. 25085 del 7 dicembre 2016, ha riconosciuto la legittimità di una delega di gestione di carattere generale, da parte del consiglio di amministrazione a favore di singoli consiglieri delegati con esercizio disgiunto dei poteri, nella misura in cui la stessa non sia diretta ad escludere l’esercizio di un concorrente potere di gestione da parte dell’organo collegiale amministrativo.

Trattamento di dati per finalità di marketing: la tutela delle persone giuridiche
Il Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali, con provvedimento n. 4 del 12 gennaio 2017, ha precisato la disciplina relativa al trattamento di dati personali per finalità di marketing, dichiarando illegittimo sia  il trattamento di dati raccolti per il tramite di moduli presenti all’interno dei siti internet delle società sia il trattamento di dati (i.e. le utenze telefoniche) autonomamente reperiti sul web.

La responsabilità amministrativa degli enti ex d.lgs. n. 231/2001 all’interno dei gruppi di imprese
È ammissibile una responsabilità, ai sensi del d.lgs. n. 231 del 2001, della società capogruppo per reati commessi nell’ambito delle attività svolte dalle società da essa controllate a condizione che a) il soggetto che agisce per conto della holding concorra con il soggetto che commette il reato per  conto  della persona giuridica controllata; e che b) possa ritenersi che la holding abbia ricevuto un concreto vantaggio o perseguito un effettivo interesse a mezzo del reato commesso nell’ambito dell’attività svolta dalla società controllata.

Considerazioni in merito alla rinunciabilità dell’effetto risolutorio della diffida ad adempiere
La sentenza della Corte di Cassazione, sez. II, n. 4205 del 3 marzo 2016 offre l’opportunità per dare brevemente conto delle diverse posizioni di giurisprudenza e dottrina in materia di rinunciabilità dell’effetto risolutorio della diffida ad adempiere.

La responsabilità degli amministratori non operativi e il dovere di agire in modo informato
La responsabilità degli amministratori privi di deleghe operative, alla luce della sentenza della Corte di Cassazione Civile, Sez. I, 31 agosto 2016, n. 17441 in commento, non può discendere da una generica condotta di omessa vigilanza – tale da essere identificata nei fatti come una responsabilità oggettiva – ma deve essere ricondotta alla violazione del dovere di agire informati, sia sulla base delle informazioni che devono essere rilasciate da parte degli amministratori operativi, sia sulla base delle informazioni che gli amministratori non operativi possono acquisire di propria iniziativa. L’individuazione dei presupposti della responsabilità degli amministratori deleganti si inquadra, pertanto, in un discorso che valorizza la differenziazione dei doveri imposti agli amministratori delegati e quelli tipici degli amministratori non esecutivi.


Patti parasociali di rinuncia preventiva all’azione di responsabilità nei confronti degli amministratori
Con sentenza 28 settembre 2015, n. 19193, la sezione specializzata in materia di impresa del Tribunale di Roma, nell’affrontare il tema della rinuncia pattizia all’azione di responsabilità verso gli amministratori di una società, ha affermato la validità delle clausole dei patti parasociali, con le quali i soci “entranti” si impegnano a non esercitare l’azione di responsabilità nei confronti degli amministratori “uscenti” o comunque a non votare favorevolmente in assemblea.

La Suprema Corte cambia orientamento: invalido il contratto bancario e finanziario firmato dal solo cliente
La Suprema Corte torna sulla questione della validità dei contratti c.d. monofirma, ossia della copia del contratti bancari e finanziari conservati negli archivi della banca recanti la sola sottoscrizione del cliente e privi invece della firma dell’istituto di credito, affermando che detti contratti sono nulli e, come tali, inopponibili al correntista.

Acquisto di quote di s.n.c.: l’errore sul valore della partecipazione può essere fondatamente dedotto come errore essenziale?
Il Tribunale di Milano ha affermato che di regola – anche con riferimento alle compravendite di quote di s.n.c. – l’accoglimento della domanda di annullamento del contratto per errore essenziale non può prescindere dall’esistenza nel contratto di una esplicita garanzia circa il valore del patrimonio e la qualità dei beni della società (garanzia che nella concreta fattispecie, a giudizio del Tribunale, mancava). 

Le nuova disciplina del giudizio davanti alla Corte di cassazione (D.L. 168/2016, convertito dalla L. 197/2016)
Con un nuovo intervento di fine estate, il legislatore è intervenuto ancora una volta in via d’urgenza sulla disciplina del codice di procedura civile, in particolare sulla disciplina del giudizio davanti alla Corte di cassazione: il 31 agosto 2016 è stato infatti pubblicato il decreto legge 168/2016, recante “Misure urgenti per la definizione del contenzioso presso la Corte di cassazione e per l’efficienza degli uffici giudiziari” (“D.L. 168/2016”).

Le Sezioni Unite della Corte di Cassazione sulla qualificazione e l’impugnazione del lodo non definitivo e del lodo parziale
Lodo che decide parzialmente il merito della controversia, immediatamente impugnabile a norma dell’art. 827 c.p.c., comma 3, è sia quello di condanna generica ex art. 278 c.p.c. sia quello che decide una o alcune delle domande proposte senza definire l’intero giudizio, non essendo immediatamente impugnabili i lodi che decidono questioni pregiudiziali o preliminari.

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?