This note examines a ruling by the Corte di Cassazione concerning procedural public policy as a ground for non-recognition of foreign judgments. The Corte di Cassazione held that a foreign judgment may not be denied recognition in Italy on the sole ground that the court of origin previously granted an in personam interim measure restraining the respondent from dealing with its assets, whereas, under Italian law, asset preservation measures necessarily operate in rem. According to the Court, the public policy defence can only succeed if the proceedings before the court of origin, considered as a whole, were tainted by a serious violation of fundamental procedural rights. Having found no evidence of such a violation in the circumstances, the Court concluded that the foreign judgment concerned was eligible for recognition. The ruling of the Corte di Cassazione confirms of the restrictive approach to public policy which the Court itself developed throughout its previous case law, and will plausibly serve as a model for future decisions regarding procedural public policy.

Franzina, P., Violation of Public Policy as a Ground for Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Case of Judgments Preceded by a Mareva-Type Freezing Order, <<THE ITALIAN REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW>>, 2022; 2 (N/A): 140-153 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/215784]

Violation of Public Policy as a Ground for Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Case of Judgments Preceded by a Mareva-Type Freezing Order

Franzina, P.
2022

Abstract

This note examines a ruling by the Corte di Cassazione concerning procedural public policy as a ground for non-recognition of foreign judgments. The Corte di Cassazione held that a foreign judgment may not be denied recognition in Italy on the sole ground that the court of origin previously granted an in personam interim measure restraining the respondent from dealing with its assets, whereas, under Italian law, asset preservation measures necessarily operate in rem. According to the Court, the public policy defence can only succeed if the proceedings before the court of origin, considered as a whole, were tainted by a serious violation of fundamental procedural rights. Having found no evidence of such a violation in the circumstances, the Court concluded that the foreign judgment concerned was eligible for recognition. The ruling of the Corte di Cassazione confirms of the restrictive approach to public policy which the Court itself developed throughout its previous case law, and will plausibly serve as a model for future decisions regarding procedural public policy.
Inglese
Franzina, P., Violation of Public Policy as a Ground for Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments – The Case of Judgments Preceded by a Mareva-Type Freezing Order, <<THE ITALIAN REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW>>, 2022; 2 (N/A): 140-153 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/215784]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Franzina, Violation of Public Policy etc. (IRIC 2022).pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 254 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
254 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/215784
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact