by Law Firm GioffrediVETTORE VITTIMA DI RAPINA: CASO FORTUITO O RESPONSABILITÀ?
Any lawyer who is active in the field of Transport Law will probably have had to deal with a dispute in which the basis of the loss of the goods, and consequently their non-delivery to the consignee, is an unlawful act such as robbery against the carrier, or those charged by him with the carriage.
Well, for a long time the party accused of gross negligence in the custody of the goods felt strong in defending itself by citing the exemptions provided for in Article 1693 of the Italian Civil Code, since it seemed clear that a robbery was not something foreseeable, but on the contrary was classifiable as something left to circumstances beyond control.
However, what has not been taken into account is that jurisprudence, with increasing concordance, has for some time now categorised the risk of theft and robbery as a typical risk of road haulage, in relation to which every professional in the sector must diligently take precautions in order to avert such dangers (Corte di Cassazione no. 7533/2009).
In this report, we wish to draw attention to what may be the appropriate actions to avoid such episodes and, therefore, a hypothetical future conviction for gross negligence on the part of the carrier.
The most recent rulings (see, to name but a few, Sentence no. 1106/2022 Court of Reggio Calabria and Sentence no. 18960/2023 Court of Rome) show how the exemption of unforeseeable circumstances is qualified by the inevitability of the robbery event in relation to the possible measures suitable to elide or mitigate the risk of the loss of the cargo which the carrier has a duty to adopt, to be carried out with the qualified diligence set forth in Article 1176 of the Civil Code.
The experience gained in several cases that Gioffredi Law Firm has dealt with in this field, allows us to state that the conduct of the driver and the precautions taken by the transport company can really make the difference as to the foreseeability of such events.
Indeed, when the event of robbery is not unforeseeable, the carrier shall be exempt from liability only if he can show that he took the appropriate measures to prevent it, taking into account all the circumstances of the concrete case, such as the value of the goods, the mode of transport, the manner of the robbery, etc.
Obviously, the more valuable the goods are, the greater will be the demand for an increased level of vehicle security and analytical planning of the stops to be made during transport.
Let us also bear in mind that the transport of goods of a certain value, or in any case goods that can be easily relocated on the market, attracts more attention from ill-intentioned persons than other types of goods. This must not escape the notice of transport companies, who must always be aware of what they are transporting and the resulting responsibilities they bear.
The accurate identification of the person collecting the goods may also prevent episodes of robbery and theft disguised as regular delivery.
It is therefore worth remembering that it is absolutely erroneous to assume that robbery in itself constitutes the unforeseeable case referred to in Art. 1693 of the Civil Code for the purposes of the exclusion of the carrier's liability for the loss of the things delivered to him. Which, mind you, does not mean that the carrier must always take precautions of an extraordinary nature and that he is in any case liable if he has not done so, but means instead, more simply, that the carrier must do all that he is required to do in relation to the characteristics of the concrete case.
Therefore, for example, the robbery of a 'container' parked in an unattended area, at night, cannot be considered an 'unforeseeable' event if it is not proven that he took all measures to prevent it, taking into account the professional nature of the service he is required to provide pursuant to Article 1176 of the Civil Code. Or again, how will it be recognised as gross negligence on the part of the driver to have got out of the vehicle, leaving the keys inserted in the ignition switch, as well as not closing the doors, to ensure that he was not easy prey to attackers, or not activating the alarm system.
Attention should also be paid to the contracts concluded with the companies entrusting transport. Indeed, the contracts often contain clauses imposing certain security systems or the obligation not to delegate transport to sub-carriers.
Giulia Gioffredi,
Lawyer & Partner at Gioffredi Law Firm - Milan
by Law Firm GioffrediWHAT CHECKS MUST BE CARRIED OUT WHEN ENTRUSTING GOODS TO A SUB-CARRIER?
Our experience in assisting our clients, both with reference to insurance companies and to transport companies, has made us reflect on how it often happens that the decision to entrust the transport of goods to a sub-carrier is made with a good deal of superficiality.
What superficiality are we talking about?
Let's find out with a very recent concrete case.
A famous brand in the luxury sector entrusted the transport of 169 packages of high-value clothing to a transport company. The carrier decided to assign the transport to a small local company.
Once the sub-carrier had received the goods, he made himself unavailable and did not deliver the packages to the consignees.
Despite the defences raised by the carrier in an attempt to limit its liability, the Court of Appeal ordered the carrier to pay compensation for the value of the goods for its gross negligence.
But on what grounds? This is where we must focus our attention: case law tells us that the carrier's liability is not excluded if the event occurred in foreseeable and avoidable manner such as to show the omission of suitable precautions to prevent it (see, for example, Cassazione no. 28612 of 20/12/2013).
In order to avoid "ex recepto" liability, specific proof is required of the derivation of the damage from a positively identified event wholly extraneous to the carrier itself, referable to the hypotheses of fortuitous event and force majeure.
The carrier's defence was therefore useless, as it attempted to limit its liability by arguing that the sub-carrier was the owner of the semitrailer, registered with the road hauliers' Association, in good standing with social security contributions, and subject of some previous collaborations with the carrier that had ended positively.
The judge assessed that the cooperation had been in place for a very short period and had been concerned with the transport of goods of extremely low value, in contrast to the present case in which the goods were well suited to the commission of criminal acts. Furthermore, the check of the sub-carrier's registration in the National Association of Road Hauliers had not been properly carried out, given the fact that they had not been registered for a few months.
The judge's evaluations led to the conviction of the carrier company for the weakness of the checks carried out on the reliability of the sub-carrier it had hired (Sent. n. 566/2023 Court of Appeal of Milan).
But such checks do not seem necessary only for the concrete transport of the goods but also for their temporary storage. Indeed, in an absolutely recent case that we are dealing with, the carrier is accused of being responsible for a kind of "culpa in eligendo" because he was extremely negligent in entrusting the goods to be delivered to the consignee, which were then destroyed following an accident that occurred inside the warehouses where they were stored, to a party that did not comply with the laws that apply to those who manage the storage of goods.
So attention must be paid to the correct methods and procedures for selecting a third party to whom goods are entrusted. Preliminary checks on the reliability of the entity, the existence of an insurance policy to cover its possible liabilities, its reputation as an operator in the field of transport, the compliance of any warehouses it uses, are all actions that the carrier must not shy away from carrying out because their absence will inevitably fall on the carrier itself.
Giulia Gioffredi,
Lawyer & Partner at Gioffredi Law Firm - Milan
by Developer Verso VisualBLOCKAGE OF THE SUEZ CANAL: LIABILITY SCENARIOS AND FORESEEABILITY OF THE EVENT
The Suez Canal has been blocked for about a week in both directions due to the stranding of a large container ship operated by Taiwanese transport Company Evergreen (400 metres long and weighing about 224,000 tonnes), the Ever Given, which ran aground transversely while crossing the busy canal. The blockage has had, and will continue to have, serious consequences on the global market, despite the ship’s recent removal from the Canal: the Suez Canal is used by 12% of the world’s commercial shipping traffic and its blockage has already caused daily damage of $9.6 billion in the first week.
It is well known that the risks to which goods transported by sea may be exposed induce those involved in maritime shipping to stipulate maritime insurance policies, the purpose of which is to indemnify the insured party against loss or damage following the occurrence of accidents. From the first data released, it seems that the Ever Given is insured for 3.1 billion dollars and, although the sum may seem huge, it could be insufficient to cover the claims that could come from a huge number of parties directly and indirectly damaged by the event, due to the considerable delays in the delivery of goods, their possible deterioration, the heavy travel costs for those who decided to divert some of the ships to the Cape of Good Hope (with a diversion that implies 9. 000 km more to travel), the damage caused to the canal by the ship’s movement and the possible legal action that could be taken by the Egyptian authorities for the loss of profit due to the interruption of navigation in the Canal, unless they are found to be partly responsible for the accident (the canal authority, which collects almost six billion dollars a year, has admitted that it has started losing one hundred million dollars a day).
Indeed, the reason for the accident is still unclear, but an initial analysis suggests that the wind and the sandstorm, which have reduced the visibility in the Canal, were not the only reasons for the accident, leaving open the possibility that human error may have contributed to the grounding of the cargo vessel, which would also change some aspects of compensation for damages caused and carrier liability (see, for example, art. 17 Rotterdam Rules about the absence or presence of fault).
What is certain is the leading role that will be played by the insurance companies of those involved who have insured their vessels for such events, which will then take recourse proceedings (subrogation under Article 1916 of the Italian Civil Code) to recover the amount paid to their insured, if it is ascertained that Ever Given carrier or the owner and manager of the Canal itself is responsible.
We can foresee that the impact will primarily be on the shipowner’s H&M insurance which cover for the costs arising from the salvage operations, while the P&I (Protection and Indemnity) insurance cover will come into play for damages that may be claimed by the Canal authorities.
Another point is based on the predictability of such an event: between 2013 and 2016 there was an average of 12 navigation accidents per year within the Canal and it appears that groundings (such as the Ever Given incident) are the most common cause, 25 in the last 10 years. It is easy to see that with navigation so heavily dependent on such narrow canals, the potential for such accidents is always there.
Such an event had already been simulated several times by various scientists, including the University of Plymouth team. The severity of the accident is due to the size of the ships using the canal, with more than a third of the accidents in the last 10 years involving container vessels. The Ever Given is 400 metres long, 59 metres at its widest point and 16 metres deep below the waterline. This makes it one of the largest container ships in the world, capable of carrying more than 18,000 containers. When operating within such narrow boundaries, ships of this size need to maintain a certain speed to keep their steering effective. So it is clear that with the capacity to carry over 150,000 tonnes of cargo, these ships cannot stop suddenly. If something goes wrong, the crews have very little time to react before the ship runs aground.
This accident highlights how the dependence of international trade on ever larger ships needing to navigate narrow shipping lanes, built in an earlier era and therefore designed for use by medium-sized vessels, is becoming increasingly risky. It is even conceivable that accidents such as these could be in future deliberately triggered to cause targeted or widespread disruptions to global and local trade.
Even before the Ever Given ran aground in the Suez Canal, the global trade network was already showing signs of stress from the year-long economic disruption of the coronavirus pandemic. The fear now is that the Suez accident could intensify Europe’s logistical challenges, resulting in cancelled sailings, container shortages and higher freight rates. In terms of the impact on the global supply chain, the accident reveals the immediate consequences of blocking one of the world’s major shipping lanes and highlights the extent to which global trade has become dependent on mega-ships, with their pros and cons.
Trainee Lawyer Giulia Gioffredi
Trainee Lawyer – Milan – Italy
by Law Firm GioffrediCARRIER’S LIABILITY IN CASE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Summary
1.Introduction
2. The case of theft of goods
2.1 Insight: the relevance of the complaint
3. The case of robbery
4. The case of loss of goods due to lack of control
5. The case of loss of goods and the inability to piece together the fact
1. Introduction
In the event that the goods transported do not reach their damaged on their arrival, the full liability of the carrier, compensation of the full value of the goods, may be requested by the person entitled only if the damage has been caused by intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence on the part of the carrier. The concept of negligence equalised to intentional wrongdoing must be assessed with reference to the legal system in which judicial proceedings are conducted to ascertain its existence, so that, if the proceedings take place in Italy, the principles and consequences of gross negligence will apply if the court finds gross negligence on the part of the carrier or its employees and supervisors, or any other person used by the carrier to perform the transport service. Although Italian case law and Italian doctrine have long been setting forth a series of general principles aimed at guiding the judge’s decision in assessing the carrier’s conduct, there is still a large grey area within which it is not possible to determine a priori whether, for example, the exemption of unforeseeable circumstance applies. The judge will therefore necessarily be required to assess in concrete terms whether in the case in question the event has those characteristics of inevitability and unforeseeability that can justify the limitation of liability.
Thus, the difficulty of establishing the key requirements for the carrier’s gross negligence has led to divergent evaluations by the courts over time. Consequently, it is of great interest to analyse the latest developments.
2. The case of theft of goods
One of the frequent hypotheses requiring the court to examine the carrier’s liability is the theft of the goods transported.
The question was recently faced by the Court of Biella with the sentence delivered on 5.02.2020. The judge was able to provide some interesting starting points on the distribution of the burden of proof and the verification of the existence of gross negligence, which, as known, excludes the invocation of the 1€/kg liability limit. In the present case, the land carrier had left the truck on which the goods were loaded in a private area, which was fenced off, equipped with cameras and closed by a barrier. However, he had failed to take the vehicle keys from the control panel inside the vehicle and the doors had not been locked for the time the driver had been inside the offices of the company owning the area.
Based on the examination of these circumstances, the judge asseted that the theft was “neither an unforeseeable and inevitable event, nor an unlawful act unrelated to the negligent conduct of the carrier, the latter having in fact facilitated the unlawful removal of the lorry and the goods contained therein precisely because of his failure to take the precautionary measures required by Article 1693 of the Italian Civil Code, a fortiori if it is considered that the area was surrounded by a fence running along the entire perimeter, except at the entrance crossed by a simple barrier”.
Making an assessment based on the causal nexus, the Judge found that it was highly unlikely that the theft could have taken place in broad daylight, in such a short space of time, while the driver was at the offices, “if he had taken the keys out of the truck and locked the vehicle, in the light of the barrier that clearly did not prevent people from entering on foot”. The theft was therefore deemed to be attributable to the carrier’s negligent conduct. The attitude adopted by the Court in assessing the carrier’s gross negligence is therefore rigorous with respect to the verification of the degree of professional diligence required to the carrier, qualifying theft, and as it will be seen at times also robbery, as an absolutely foreseeable risk in the context of road transport.
Also, the Court of Appeal of Salerno, in its decision delivered on 23.04.2020, found the carrier and the sub-carrier engaged by him to carry out the transport of a consignment of goods guilty of serious misconduct, following the theft committed by unknown persons while the cargo was on board of an articulated lorry left inside the customs area. In the present case, the carrier had tried to prove the existence of an unforeseeable circumstance, since the theft had occurred during the night, while the vehicle was inside the customs barrier of the port, whose access points are guarded by the Finance Authority.
However, the Court of Appeal affirmed that it could not accept the existence of the characteristics of inevitability and unforeseeability of the event capable of integrating the unforeseeable circumstance, considering that the abandonment of the vehicle “in the customs area regularly fenced off with gates guarded by the Finance Authority and about 200 metres from the Police Office is not a circumstance by itself capable of excluding liability, since it is not even deduced whether the vehicle was equipped with adequate anti-theft systems and the fact that the trailers were inside the customs gates is irrelevant, since the surveillance provided by the police was carried out exclusively for customs purposes”.
The Court therefore found the carrier’s conduct to be “grossly negligent“, rejecting the appeal filed by the carrier and the sub-carrier and confirming the first instance ruling that had already upheld the plaintiff’s claim.
Also the Court of Gorizia, in its judgment delivered on the 29 June 2018, reaffirmed the principle already stated by the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione, Civil Division I, no. 554/2015) according to which, “in order to exclude the carrier’s liability ex recepto, it is not sufficient to prove the loss of the cargo due to theft, since it is necessary to ascertain that the facts, even if traceable to a crime, took place in such an atypical and abnormal manner as to be considered totally unpredictable and inevitable, despite the adoption of adequate preventive measures”. According to the Judge, this circumstance had not been proved in this case since the carrier had not been able to provide any information about the loss of the cargo, except for reporting to the Udine Police Headquarters that the cargo had disappeared due to the inability to trace the driver of the sub-carrier company to which the defendant had entrusted the carriage.
The Court thus stated that the complaint, besides characterised by a general nature, of certain criminal offences cannot be sufficient to consider the actual course of events as reported, with the consequence, already ruled by the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 1935/2003, that the simple complaint does not allow, in view of the special diligence imposed on the carrier in the custody of the goods entrusted to him, to exonerate him from liability for the loss of the goods transported.
Indeed, the gross negligence of the carrier sued for compensation for damage resulting from the loss of the goods transported may legitimately be affirmed if the carrier is unable to provide any indication as to the time, place and circumstances of the loss of the goods. This appears to be sufficient to establish, on a presumption, that the organisation set up by the carrier, which under the legislation also includes the sub-carrier, lacks elementary diligence, which constitutes gross negligence.
Otherwise, the carrier who simply states that it was unaware of the circumstances of the loss of the goods would inevitably place the injured party in the position of not being able to fulfil its burden of proof.
The Court also recalled that when the carrier, in order to perform the carriage, resorts to third parties, if the loss of the goods delivered depends on the fault or wilful misconduct of one of them, both, in the external relations with the creditor of the service, are considered to be the carrier’s own, without the necessity for any distinct and independent fault on his part, such as, in particular, culpa in eligendo (see Corte di Cassazione Civile, section III, 4/4/2003, no. 5329).
2.1 Insight: the relevance of the complaint
The judgement delivered by the Court of Biella provides a starting point for a brief reflection on the function often played by the carrier’s complaint in the Italian proceedings. In cases where goods are stolen, there are few documents that allow the parties, their insurers and, if necessary, the judge to reconstruct what happened: among these, the complaint describing the evolution of the damaging event is therefore important. It is precisely from here that critical issues can arise: it frequently happens that the complaint is submitted to the competent authority by a person who is not competent to represent the company, such as the driver, who is not willing to carry out in- depth investigations.
Generally, the report contains the complainant’s personal information, the details of the goods lost, the reference value of the goods, much more rarely a precise description is given of the circumstances that caused the loss, almost never what the carrier did to prevent the loss from occurring. The Court will therefore be confronted with a statement that is often self- accusatory, opening the way to an assessment of the possible existence of gross negligence on the part of the carrier due to his inability to reconstruct the event.
Before filing a complaint, therefore, it would be advisable to create an internal report gathering the necessary documents and data to illustrate any precautions taken by the carrier, in order to lay the foundations for rejecting the hypothesis of gross negligence on the part of the carrier and to be able to define the possible responsibilities of the parties in the logistics chain involved in the transport service.
3. The case of robbery
As regards the hypothesis of robbery, the thesis according to which there would be an automatic exclusion of the full liability of the carrier has long since been surpassed.
Decisive and increasingly referred to by the judging body in the decision- making phase, as far as we are interested, is sentence no. 7533/2009 of the Supreme Court, which affirms that, pursuant to article 1693 of the Italian Civil Code, “the event represented by robbery does not, in itself, constitute a unforeseeable circumstance, it being necessary, on the contrary, whenever the risk of such an event is not unpredictable, for the carrier to demonstrate that he has adopted, among the various forms of conduct, those most suitable to ensure the punctual performance of the service incumbent on him, to be assessed in the light of the parameter of specific diligence indicated in article 1176, paragraph 2 of the Italian Civil Code”.
In the present case, the conduct of the driver, to whom the goods were materially entrusted, was characterised by evident negligence, consisting in having left the vehicle parked, during the whole night, on an unguarded public road, without any preventive means of defence against robbery by violence or threat, other than his own physical presence.
The Court added in its decision that “the professional carrier, although benefiting from a wide autonomy in choosing the time, method and route of transport, is still required to make choices in order to minimize the risk of loss of cargo, so that the choice of the carrier to place the cargo at night in an unattended area, is not an unquestionable choice, but reaches the level of gross negligence, given that the risks of theft and robbery are typical of the road transport activity, against which the companies in the sector are particularly required to prevent”. Moreover, in the case in question, the Appeal Judge had already considered the conduct of the carrier to be grossly negligent, because the carrier had failed to foresee the special conditions that would arise for the conclusion of the transport at night. Indeed, the Court of Appeal stated that “the duration of the journey in relation to the time of departure and the extension of the route could not fail to fall within the minimum capacity of the professional carrier to organise the safekeeping of the cargo in a protected area”.
The truth is that in the present case the goods had been left in a place without night surveillance and adequate fencing, so that the decision is adequately motivated on the qualification of the high degree of negligence and the consequent exclusion of unforeseeable circumstance. Indeed, as already stated by the Supreme Court in sentence no. 7293/96, “the removal of the transported goods by violence or threat cannot be considered as a cause for releasing the carrier’s liability if the circumstances in which it occurred are such as to make it foreseeable and, therefore, avoidable”.
Also the Court of Appeal of Florence, with its decision no. 2487/2019, following the direction taken by the Supreme Court, reaffirmed the principle according to which the carrier is always required to make suitable choices to minimise the risk of loss of cargo.
In the case in question, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the existence of gross negligence on the part of the lorry driver who, as the first instance judge had already pointed out, had stopped at night in an unprotected, unfenced and even less supervised area, without he any prevision for the vehicle, with only one driver on board and therefore in the absence of a companion with whom the driver could alternate in controlling the vehicle during the night, to be equipped with adequate protection systems. Among the hypotheses of adequate systems of protection of the vehicle, the Court of Appeal refers to:
-an anti-theft system equipped with an acoustic system or an alarm system linked to the Police;
-measures to prevent or delay the criminal action until the arrival of the Police;
-protective barriers aimed at preventing or, in any case, making it difficult to take hold of the load.
Therefore, negligence on the part of the carrier is attributable to his professional role, since he must be aware that the risk of theft and robbery is very high in road haulage and frequent in unguarded parking areas.
4. The case of loss of goods due to lack of control
Another hypothesis, which is not infrequently indicative of gross negligence, occurs when the control activity carried out by the carrier during transport is not sufficient and becomes the very cause of the loss of the goods.
In a recent decision, the Court of Monza (judgment no. 556/2018) asserted that the carrier was liable for gross negligence, arguing that the carrier’s activity in the case in question “was characterised by great superficiality due to the failure to take even the slightest precautions concerning the control of the goods loaded and unloaded as well as the identity of the persons responsible for their delivery and receipt”.
Specifically, the case involved several parties, all involved in various ways in the delivery of the goods sent to destination and never received.
In the course of the investigation, a certain superficial behaviour of all the carriers/sub-carriers had emerged, whom, both during the loading and unloading of the goods, had not, by their own admission made by the witnesses employed by the companies, checked the correspondence between what was loaded and unloaded and the relevant delivery letters, which in this case were two. Consequently, no checks had been carried out either during the delivery of the first load to the first consignee and the first destination or during the delivery of the second load. Since this case falls under the provisions of Article 1693 of the Italian Civil Code, in which the carrier is liable for the loss of cargo unless he proves that such loss was caused by unforeseeable circumstance, by defects in the goods or their packaging, or by the acts of the sender or the consignee, and no contrary evidence having been adduced in the course of the investigation, the Court affirms that the carrier was liable, supported by factual evidence that corroborated the carrier’s gross negligence.
Before it, also the Supreme Court, in its decision no. 6483/2017, had already affirmed that the activity of control was not at all extraneous to the execution of the transport by the carrier itself, but was an integral part of one of those additional obligations to the performance of that contractual relationship, necessary to achieve the practical purpose set by the parties. Indeed, the Supreme Court had pointed out in this case that the Court of Appeal had rightly found that the carrier was exclusively liable for not having checked that the goods had been loaded on the very container in which they should have been actually stored, since the carrier was the only person who was aware, on the basis of the consignment letter, of the related identification data, necessary for that purpose because of the presence of another container intended for different carriage.
The failure to check the goods and the waybill was indicative of gross negligence on the part of the carrier who, therefore, could not benefit from the limitation of liability under Law 450/1985.
Also the Court of Bolzano, with its decision no. 1204/2018, ruled on the presence of gross negligence on the part of the carrier, following the failure to apply the precautions for the transport of the goods and its control.
In the present case, the defendant company had transported a cooling device. In order to carry out the transport, the defendant instructed an Austrian carrier to deliver the machine, which arrived at its destination damaged in several places and was therefore not collected by the recipient company. On the instructions of the shipper, the package was brought back to the company, where it was repaired by the manufacturer, the costs being covered by the plaintiff.
The defendant therefore asked for a new transport, assuring that it would be carried out “obviously this time with the necessary precautions“.
After a new transport, the package was again refused by the addressee, due to the presence of apparent damage.
The Technical Expert nominated by the Judge came to the reasonable conclusion that “the cause of the damage was to be found in the handling contrary to the instructions printed on the package”.
The carrier therefore admitted that he had handled the goods in a manner different from the instructions on the package to be transported. The Court of First Instance concluded that the negligence was gross, since the defendant had admitted that the first carriage had not been carried out with the necessary precautions and that not even at the second attempt, mindful of what had happened, he was able to adopt such “necessary precautions“, besides clearly indicated in the recommendations on the package.
5. The case of loss of goods and the inability to piece together the fact
Another hypothesis that has repeatedly engaged the Italian Courts on the subject of gross negligence of the carrier is the inability to reconstruct the events that led to the loss of the goods transported.
The Court of Perugia, in its judgment delivered on the 26 February 2020, confirmed, in accordance with the principle set out by the Supreme Court in a famous judgment which will be analysed below, that if the carrier fails to provide information about the steps leading to the loss of the goods, there could be a case of gross negligence and therefore the limit of indemnity indicated by the CMR (8.33 SDR per Kg) could be excluded.
In the present case, the plaintiff had delivered a cargo of 15,000 kg of bottles of oil to the carrier to transport to England, providing the carrier with a CMR. Subsequently, when the plaintiff requested payment for the goods sold, he discovered that the consignee purchaser had not received anything and consequently had not made the payment.
Having asked the carrier for an explanation, the plaintiff was informed that the goods had not been delivered to the exact address indicated in the CMR, but to another warehouse located at a distance of about 20 km from that place and that this place was no longer traceable.
As clearly stated in the judgement, the carrier, for unknown reasons, had not delivered the cargo to the place indicated in the transport documents but, on the basis of indications from an unspecified and unidentified contact person of the consignee, to another warehouse, subsequently failing to inform the consignor of what had happened.
Also in this case, the lack of due diligence on the part of the carrier and his inability to prove that the loss of the goods was due to a unforeseeable circumstance or to the other hypotheses envisaged by Article 1693 of the Italian Civil Code and Articles 17 and 18 of the Geneva Convention on the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), led to the defendant company being ordered to pay full compensation for the value of the goods transported.
Another case dealing with the above hypothesis is the one faced by the Court of Milan (Judgement no. 3285/2018, Section XI), which ruled that a carrier who is unable to clarify how and when the goods were stolen while under its control is guilty of gross negligence, pursuant to article 1696, paragraph IV of the Italian Civil Code.
In the present case, the plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of a medical instrument taken by the defendant for transportation. With regard to the loss of the package intended for the plaintiff, the Judge affirmed that “the defendant had acted in a manner that could be qualified as grossly negligent, in view of the fact that, although the defendant was a professional operator who had managed every stage of the transport operation, which was undisputedly carried out over a period of a few hours, it had not been able to provide any explanation for the loss of the goods transported”. Moreover, the defendant’s attempt to defend itself against the allegation of gross negligence by claiming that he had tried to search for the package, which had evidently been stolen in his own warehouses, was also considered irrelevant.
It is interesting to note here a further analysis made by the Court of Milan, which has considered as constituting gross negligence the category of the goods transported, which was specified on the consignment note (medical surgical instruments), and which, according to the Judge, should have given rise to a duty of special care and attention on the part of the carrier, given the obvious value and delicacy of the goods themselves.
The Judge further added that “the fact that the defendant had not even been able to explain how and when the goods had been stolen, while it was within its sphere of control, constituted gross negligence on the part of the carrier who had shown that he had failed to take due care in carrying out the transport”.
It seems clear, therefore, that otherwise there would be the paradox that the carrier’s failure to explain the circumstances in which the loss occurred, as a symptom of gross negligence in the handling of the transport steps, would mitigate its liability.
A similar judgment was recently delivered by the Court of Appeal of Catania (judgment no. 869/2020) which, in the present case, asserted that “the carrier was guilty of gross negligence for not having clarified “how” and “when” the goods were destroyed, considering that, according to settled case law, the carrier is the custodian of the goods from their loading to their arrival at destination”.
The well-established case law often referred to in rulings convicting the carrier on the ground of inability to reconstruct the event, starts from a notorious judgment of the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione, Section III, Sentence no. 21679 of 13 October 2009) in which the Supreme Court ruled that “the conduct of the carriers and sub-carriers was such as to constitute gross negligence on the part of the defendant company, since it is undoubtedly gross negligence to disregard the goods transported and to place them in such a disorderly and careless manner that it is not even possible to reconstruct how and why they were lost”.
The Court confirmed that, in the present case, it was highly significant that the sub-carrier had not been able to give adequate information to the sender about the circumstances in which the goods entrusted to him had gone missing.
Neither the carrier nor the sub-carrier had been able to specify the location and circumstances in which the goods had been found to be missing and where the goods had been stored before they disappeared. All this, according to the Court, “showed a serious disorganisation of the sub-carrier in the performance of the service, for which the principal carrier was directly liable”.
However, the Court recognises the incorrect evaluation of the Appeal Court when it qualifies gross negligence treating it as a simple lack of diligence. And the Supreme Court supports its argument by stating that “while it is undoubtedly true that the carrier is obliged to always perform his services with “adequate diligence” and therefore, if he fails to do so, he is responsible, it is not less true that in order to classify such responsability as gross negligence, this must be characterised by a “quid pluris” of the simple lack of diligence”.
In the present case, moreover, no indication had been given to the sub-carrier as to the value of the goods transported. The Supreme Court’s analysis of the point is interesting: the Supreme Court supports the Court of Appeal’s view that the failure to indicate the value of the cargo in this specific case could not have had any relevance for the purposes of limiting the carrier’s liability, but it also provides a guideline to be followed as to whether the value of the goods transported is relevant: the Court holds that “there is no doubt that the indication of a particular value of the goods implies for the carrier a particular duty of vigilance and the taking of particular precautions, in view of the greater likelihood of theft. However, it goes on to say that there is no doubt that the delivery of goods, even of modest value, must in any case be treated with adequate diligence, so that in any case the total disinterest in them and their being placed in such a disorderly and careless manner as to make it impossible even to reconstruct how and why their loss occurred, appears to constitute gross negligence”.
Trainee Lawyer Giulia Gioffredi
Trainee Lawyer
by Law Firm GioffrediART. 46 ACT N. 298/74: WHAT SANCTIONS ARE APPLIED TO THE EU VEHICLE TRANSITING IN ITALY WITHOUT AUTHORISATION OR LICENCE ON BOARD?
[Following the changes to article 46 Act no. 298/74 for vehicles registered in a member state of the EU or the EEA, it is now possible to pay a reduced amount equal to the minimum fixed by the single rule, i.e. € 2,065.00, to be paid within 60 days from the day of the offence1. Alternatively, it is possible to pay the same amount to the officer as a deposit (the choice of this method must be indicated on the report). Article 46 also establishes as a supplementary sanction the administrative detention of the vehicle for 3 months, which should be reasonably released once the amount established by the sanction or the deposit has been paid and the missing documents delivered to the Local Authority. It is also believed that, following the amendments made by security decree no. 113/2018, the obligation to entrust the detained vehicle to the person entitled to custody is now in force.]
Article 46 of the Act 298/74 punishes the carriage of goods by vehicles without authorisations on behalf of third parties or licences on behalf of third parties, or which violate the conditions or limits set out in the licence or authorisation, with the administrative sanction of the payment of a sum from € 2,065.00 to € 12,394.00 and sets as a supplementary sanction the administrative detention of the vehicle for a period of three months.
This provision has been modified for the hypothesis in which the violations referred to in article 46 are committed by a vehicle registered in EU countries or countries that have joined the EEA, engaged in international road transport activities in Italy.
We therefore refer to art. 52, paragraph 1, letter b), of Act no. 120 of 29 July 2010, which, by modifying art. 60 of Act no. 298/1974, established that the violations referred to in article 46 of Act no. 298/1974, committed with a vehicle registered abroad, which is carrying out international road transport activities or cabotage operations in Italy, are subject to the provisions of art. 207 of the Highway Code (“Codice della Strada”2).
As a result of this variation, it is now possible to make the reduced payment provided for in Article 202 of the Highway Code, and the offender is therefore allowed to pay, within sixty day by the contestation or notification, an amount equal to the minimum fixed by the individual regulations (in our case, the minimum is € 2,065.00).
However, attention is drawn to the fact that in the case in which the offender does not use the right of reduced payment, for whatever reason, he can pay to the officer in charge, by way of deposit, an amount equal to the sum required for the reduced payment foreseen by Art. 202 (this provision applies, we remind you, only in the hypothesis, of our interest, in which the vehicle is registered in a Member State of the European Union or adherent to the Agreement on the European Economic Space and not to a vehicle registered in Italy).
The payment of the deposit must be mentioned in the report of violation. Local authorities still tend to demand a fine of € 4,130.00, on the basis of what we believe to be a misapplication of Article 16 of Act 689/81, which provides that the minimum amount of the sanction for article 46 should be one third of the maximum, or twice the minimum if more favourable. We believe that the correct definition of the amount of the sanction is the one set out in Article 202 of the Highway Code, i.e. the reduced payment of the minimum amount expressed by the single rule (in our case, we start from a minimum amount of € 2,065.00). The same assessment should therefore be applied to define the correct amount of the bail.
It is relevant to underline that for the offences committed under the Art. 46 of the Act no. 298/74, in addition to the payment of the pecuniary sanction, the administrative detention for three months is prescribed under the Art. 214 of the Highway Code (reference is made here to the regulations in Chapter I, Section II of the Title VI of the Highway Code), consequently, after the payment of the pecuniary administrative sanction or the deposit, or after the 60 days provided for by Art. 207 of the Highway Code, the local authorities tend to apply the supplementary measure of the administrative detention until the expiry of the three month term.
Here, the recent application practice often deviates from the literal application of the rule: indeed, we find several Prefetti3 that, following the request submitted by the offender for the return of the vehicle in order to transfer it out of the Italian territory and in compliance with the prohibition of its circulation on the Italian territory until the end of the administrative detention, grant the return before the expiry of the 3 months of detention so that it is transferred to the country of origin, always, however, subject to verification of the payment of the sanction in reduced amount or by way of deposit.
It should also be noted that following the complete rewriting of the rules of the Highway Code by security decree no. 113/2018, in the light of the modification of Articles 213 and 214 of the Italian Civil Code, the general principle has been reinforced according to which the obligation of immediate custody of the vehicle by the person entitled to custody is the general rule.
Consequently, in the case of verification of the violations referred to in Article 46 Act 298/74, since the rules operate only a mere formal reference to the provisions of Chapter I, Section II, of Title VI of the Highway Code, the general procedure remains applicable, with the obligation to entrust the person entitled to custody.
If the owner is not present on the vehicle, he/she must be notified immediately and asked to take custody of the vehicle.
Only in the event that the owner of the vehicle is not available or, in any case, states that he cannot, or does not wish to take custody of the vehicle, shall the vehicle be entrusted first of all to the driver or, in the event of impossibility or refusal, to other parties who are jointly and severally obliged to take custody of the vehicle (such as the lessee, etc.).
Having clarified the sanctioning effects of the rule, there are two other topics to be analysed: what are the protective measures available to the alleged offender? Is there only the formulation of a complaint to the Prefetto of the locus commissi delicti, as often the contestation report leads the transgressor to believe, omitting any reference to the possibility of appeal before the Justice of the Peace (“Giudice di Pace”4), or is this latter authority also competent?
Moreover, how is it dealt with in Italian courts in the case where a penalty is imposed under Article 46 of Act 298/74 for the mere temporary lack of documentation on board, and not its total absence?
The first aspect must be analysed by following the two different interpretations given by the Italian jurisprudence, which has not expressed itself uniformly.
Indeed, we find judges who say that the regulations of the Highway Code are not applicable, since the reference made by paragraph 2 of article 46 of act no. 298/1974 to the “regulations in chapter I, section II, of title VI of legislative decree no. 285 of 30 April 1992” has been surpassed by the new formulation of article 204 bis of the Highway Code (made by legislative decree no. 150 of 1 September 2011) whose article 7, providing that “disputes concerning opposition to the report of violation of the Highway Code referred to in article 204 bis of legislative decree 285 of 30 April 1992, are regulated by the labour procedure” and that “the opposition is brought before the Giudice di Pace of the place where the violation was committed”, referring explicitly to Highway Code violations, make the previous rules inapplicable (see Giudice di Pace of Gemona del Friuli, sentence of 10 November 2015, no. 52).
Other cases law, including a decision of the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione 5) and various decisions of the Giudice di Pace, asserts instead that Art. 46 of Act No. 298/74 requires that, at least with regard to the hypothesis of administrative detention of the vehicle, the regulations in Chapter I Section II of Title VI of the Highway Code must be observed. This referral would imply a clear reference to article 214, paragraph 4, and would therefore guarantee the right to appeal either to the Prefetto under article 203 or, alternatively, to the Giudice di Pace of the place where the violation was committed under article 205 of the Codice della Strada (see Corte di Cassazione, Civil Division, Sentence 17028/2007, which also pointed out that the contrary interpretation of the rule, which would limit the possibility of bringing an action for protection only against the Prefetto, would damage the right of defence of the offender).
The second topic was recently addressed again by the Supreme Court (see Corte di Cassazione, Section II, Order no. 28283/2019 of 05.11.2019). The Prefettura argued that the Giudice di Pace and then the Court in second instance should have taken into account the fact that all the authorisation models prepared by the Administration and the internal circulars of the latter expressly mention the obligation to carry the licence or authorisation on board and consequently this should have been sufficient to consider that the violation under Article 46 of Act no. 298/1974 took place.
The Supreme Court, rejecting the appeal, stated that it is necessary to give continuity to the orientation already expressed by the Supreme Court itself in the past, according to which in order to have transport of goods by road without authorisation, sanctioned under Article 46 of Act 6 June 1974, no. 298, it is necessary that a transport of goods is carried out by a person who is not in possession of the necessary authorisation because it was never issued, it being irrelevant that the authorisation is not momentarily in his possession at the time when the violation is ascertained (see Corte di Cassazione, Section II, Sentence no. 12697 of 30.05.2007).
The Supreme Court also added that the different interpretation put forward by the appellant Prefettura cannot be accepted, since the infringement of the provisions contained in the licence or authorisation does not take place in relation to what is set out in the models prepared by the Administration, which may change over time or contain errors and omissions, but rather when a different goods are transported instead of the prescribed ones (see Corte di Cassazione, Section II, Judgement no. 23082 of 30.10.2009).
This recent orientation expressed by the Supreme Court reveals an incongruity between the behaviour sometimes adopted by the Local Authorities when the above-mentioned case occurs, and the principles established by Italian jurisprudence. Indeed, it is not uncommon that the deliver of the missing document, even in the immediate phase following the drafting of the report of charge, leaves unaltered not only the application of the main sanction (also in its quantum), but also the supplementary sanction of the detention of the vehicle for 3 months, witch bring with it the obvious consequences in terms of damages for the company owning the vehicle.
It is therefore necessary to bring legislators and local authorities into line, not least to safeguard the principle of procedural economy, so as to reduce the number of cases in which it is necessary to go to the judge or to the Prefettura to request the revocation of the sanction, and so that our laws can be understood and applied with the highest degree of transparency and clarity. For this to happen, the models and guidelines prepared by the Administration also play a primary role: they must act as an intermediary between the legislator and local authorities and cannot afford “errors and omissions”, as stated by the Supreme Court in its recent 2019 ruling.
January 2021
Trainee Lawyer Giulia Gioffredi
1 The application of a penalty of €4,135.00 on the basis of Article 16 of Act no. 689/81 is, in our opinion, incorrect. Indeed, Article 16 of the above-mentioned Act provides that the minimum edictal sanction must be equal to one third of the maximum, or if more favourable, double the minimum edictal sanction (in this case, therefore, 4,135.00 euros). On the contrary, as we have supported, the amendment of art. 60 of the Act no. 298/1974, has established that the violations referred to in article 46 of the same Act no. 298/1974, committed with a vehicle registered abroad, are subject to the provisions of art. 207 of the Highway Code, which in turn refers to article 202 of the Highway Code: therefore, the offender is allowed to pay, within sixty days from the contestation or notification, an amount equal to the minimum fixed by the individual regulations (in our case 2,065.00 euros), and not the double of the minimum edictal amount.
2 Il Codice della Strada, in the Italian law system, is a set of rules in the form of a code issued to regulate the movement of pedestrians, vehicles and animals on the road on the Italian territory.
3 Prefettura is, in Italy, a suburban authority of the Ministry of the Interior that has the function of general representation of the government on the territory of the province or metropolitan city; it has its seat in the chief town.
4 Giudice di Pace is a qualified legal practitioner who is able to deal with a range of minor civil and criminal cases.
5 Corte di Cassazione is the apex of ordinary jurisdiction, being the court of last instance in the Italian ordinary (criminal and civil) court system. It ensures the uniform application and interpretation of legal rules (so-called nomofilactic function) and coordinates relations between the various jurisdictions.
by Law Firm GioffrediPROBLEMATICHE CONNESSE ALLA CONVIVENZA TRA CLAIMS MADE E PRESCRIZIONE BREVE NEL DIRITTO ITALIANO
a cura dell’avv. Arturo Gioffredi
1. Introduzione
2. Il significato di claims made
3. La liceità della clausola per i giudici italiani e all’estero
4. La liceità della clausola per i giudici tedeschi
5. La prescrizione breve e le conseguenze della sua applicazione. Rimedi attuabili.
1. Introduzione
Nell’ordinamento italiano convivono da una parte un contratto di polizza per assicurare la responsabilità civile contenente una clausola cardine “atipica”, nota con il termine inglese di “claims made”, e dall’altra la cosiddetta prescrizione breve, ex art. 2952, comma 2°, codice civile.
Questa ultima norma prevede, per l’assicurato o contraente, l’obbligo di denuncia del sinistro all’assicuratore entro un termine di due anni ( sino al 27.10.2008 tale termine era addirittura ridotto ad un anno ) dal giorno in cui il terzo abbia richiesto il risarcimento all’assicurato o abbia promosso contro di questo l’azione. E’ quel che prevede il terzo comma dell’art. 2952 del codice civile in materia di responsabilità civile.
Caratteristica fondamentale della polizza con clausola “claims made” o “claim made” è quella di consentire all’assicurato di denunciare il sinistro, di cui abbia avuto conoscenza per la prima volta durante il periodo di vigenza della polizza, in ogni tempo purché entro lo spirare del periodo di copertura della polizza.
Tale convivenza crea non poche difficoltà quando la volontà delle parti di stipulare un contratto governato dal claims made, che quindi consentirebbe la denuncia del sinistro “in ogni tempo purché entro lo spirare del periodo di copertura della polizza”, vada a collidere pericolosamente con l’eventuale spirare del termine breve di prescrizione prima della scadenza della polizza o comunque prima che sia stata inoltrata la denuncia del sinistro in pendenza di polizza.
Nulla quaestio se, nel giudizio, il soggetto che potrebbe fare valere la prescrizione breve ( l’assicuratore ) rinunci all’eccezione.
I problemi sorgono e possono diventare devastanti negli effetti quando invece, al contrario, l’eccezione di prescrizione venga fatta valere tempestivamente.
2. Il significato di claims made
In Italia sono principalmente due le sentenze che offrono una definizione di “claims made “.
Nella sentenza 15.3.2005, n. 5624, la Corte Suprema di Cassazione (sezione 3^ civile ), dovendosi occupare di una polizza professionale (avvocato), entra più volte nel merito della clausola claims made pur analizzandone solo aspetti collegati alla problematica in quel caso trattata dalla Corte, ossia la eventuale vessatorietà di tale clausola e la conseguente inefficacia, ove non specificamente approvata.
Quel che importa ai fini della presente trattazione è che nelle prime righe della parte motiva della sentenza è dato leggere che la Suprema Corte si è occupata di un contratto assicurativo che “vale per le richieste di risarcimento presentate per la prima volta all’assicurata nel corso del periodo di assicurazione “ e che tale contratto di assicurazione…. “rientra nella tradizionale impostazione della responsabilità civile di derivazione anglosassone, improntata sul principio del “claims made”.
In altra sentenza il Tribunale di Crotone, 8.11.2004, offre una definizione di claims made che evidenzia che essa riguarda i reclami avanzati nei confronti dell’assicurato e notificati all’assicuratore per la prima volta durante il periodo di validità della copertura.
Si tratta di un contratto di polizza che, come detto sopra, ha origini anglosassoni e che è stato creato agli inizi degli anni ottanta quando, soprattutto in seguito alle domande di risarcimento per i danni derivati dall’amianto, le società di assicurazione e di riassicurazione (per queste ultime principalmente i Lloyds di Londra) si trovarono in una situazione di grave difficoltà per la imprevedibilità di richieste di risarcimento, per fatti accaduti molti anni prima e mai denunciati prima di allora, che neppure erano mai state messe a riserva.
Di tali danni, purché verificatisi durante il periodo di vigenza della polizza, le compagnie di assicurazione dovevano rispondere, senza nulla potere opporre, in virtù delle pattuizioni contenute nel contratto di polizza sino ad allora in uso, detto “occurrance”, “ losses occurring “ o “ loss occurrance, ossia ad insorgenza del danno, che ricalca lo schema tipico di cui all’art. 1917 c.c..
E dunque il mondo assicurativo rimediò alla crisi inventando un nuovo modello di polizza per la responsabilità civile che, inizialmente, fu utilizzato per le polizze che coprivano la responsabilità professionale ( avvocati, medici, notai, commercialisti, architetti ed ingegneri…. ) e per le polizze R.C. Prodotti, ed in seguito fu esteso a molte altre tipologie di polizze.
Il modello doveva servire in primissimo luogo ad evitare che il rischio, che le compagnie di assicurazione assumevano col contratto di polizza, potesse protrarsi per molti anni dopo la scadenza.
Ed infatti, nella claims made la copertura viene garantita solo per le richieste di risarcimento che sono presentate al Contraente per la prima volta durante il periodo di efficacia dell’assicurazione, escludendo quindi ogni copertura per il periodo successivo alla scadenza della polizza, salvo eventuali deroghe che sono note come “ sunset clause “.
Per l’assicurato sorge, di conseguenza, la necessità di stipulare polizze che coprano l’intero periodo di attività senza soluzione di continuità, pena il rischio di trovarsi privo di copertura assicurativa per un dato periodo.
Per l’assicuratore, invece, vi è la certezza che alla scadenza della polizza non saranno coperti fatti/sinistri che dovessero essere denunciati all’assicuratore dopo la scadenza.
Per questi fatti che l’assicurato non fosse in grado di denunciare entro la scadenza, in quanto a sua volta potrebbe non averne avuto conoscenza in tempo utile, non è attualmente, di norma e salvo costose deroghe, più possibile assicurarsi, dato che la claims made, col passare degli anni è diventata l’unica formula di polizza utilizzata per la responsabilità civile professionale e da difetto del Prodotto.
Per altro verso è necessario dire che una polizza “classica o tipica” ad insorgenza del danno, che in inglese, come detto, è nota come “ losses occurring “ o “ loss occurrance “, dato che copre solo i danni accaduti durante il periodo di vigenza della polizza, non potrebbe mai coprire fatti verificatisi prima della stipula della polizza.
I sostenitori della piena legittimità della claims made non hanno perso l’occasione per evidenziare in questo elemento un bilanciamento degli interessi delle parti.
Nelle polizze r.c. professionali ( professional liability ) il contraente-assicurato ( l’uno non sempre coincide con l’altro ), ad esempio, potrebbe avere interesse a coprire un lasso di tempo che comprenda non solo i fatti-danni che si possano verificare durante il periodo di vigenza della polizza ma anche fatti-danni, non denunciati dal danneggiato, verificatisi in un periodo precedente alla stipula della polizza, un periodo in cui egli non era assicurato o lo era in maniera insufficiente.
Non è d’altro canto infrequente, anzi forse è quasi la regola, che un professionista riceva la denuncia di un danno dopo molti anni dal fatto-contatto che lo avrebbe provocato.
Ecco che la polizza claims made si adatterebbe perfettamente alle suddette esigenze, richiedendo essa solo che il fatto – danno sia denunciato durante la vigenza della polizza.
Con l’entrata in vigore della Direttiva 85/374/CE la polizza “claims made”, in un primo periodo, aveva trovato applicazione agevolata anche nel settore R.C. Prodotti.
Essa rispondeva infatti perfettamente alle esigenze del Produttore che ai sensi dell’art. 125 del Codice del Consumo ( D. lgs 206/2005 ), che aveva recepito la suddetta Direttiva, per il tramite del DPR 224/88 , vedeva prescriversi il diritto al risarcimento dopo tre anni dal giorno in cui il danneggiato aveva avuto o avrebbe dovuto avere conoscenza del danno, del difetto e dell’identità del responsabile.
Ancora più si comprende l’esigenza del Produttore di coprire, col contratto di polizza, un periodo più lungo possibile a ritroso, se si considera che il successivo art. 126 prevede un termine di decadenza di dieci anni dalla messa in circolazione del prodotto.
Le compagnie di assicurazione però, dopo un primo periodo in cui hanno accettato di pagare danni risalenti anche a molti anni prima della stipula, hanno presto trovato il modo per limitare la copertura per il passato, stabilendo che il fatto-danno, per essere indennizzabile, oltre a dovere essere stato denunciato per la prima volta al contraente durante la vigenza della polizza, dovesse anche essere accaduto, ad esempio, entro uno, due,……. cinque anni antecedenti la data di stipula.
Non sempre, anzi quasi mai, tale previsione, sicuramente penalizzante per il contraente, è controbilanciata da un adeguato “ tail coverage” ossia un periodo dopo la scadenza della polizza che la compagnia tollera e durante il quale accetta eventuali denunce di sinistro come se fossero avvenute durante il periodo di vigenza della polizza.
Dato l’evidente sbilanciamento tra i contrapposti interessi, ne è derivato un vasto contenzioso che ha sottoposto ai giudici la valutazione dell’assenza di contrasto del claims made con norme inderogabili.
3. La liceità della clausola per i giudici italiani e all’estero.
In Italia l’arresto più importante è quello della Corte di Cassazione, sez. 3^ civile, sentenza 15 marzo 2005, n. 5624, che ha ritenuto che la claims made sia una clausola atipica, lecita che, a seconda delle circostanze da valutare di volta in volta, può risultare vessatoria e necessitare, per la sua validità, della specifica approvazione ( confermata da Cass., 22 marzo 2013, n. 7273 e da Cass. n. 2872 del 13/2/2015 ).
Nel 2001 la Corte di Appello di Napoli ( 28.2.2001, n. 503 ) aveva ritenuto la nullità e/o vessatorietà della claims made, imitato da Tribunale di Bologna 2.10.2002 n. 3318 che traeva elementi per dichiararne l’illiceità dalla contrarietà alla norma primaria, imperativa e di immediata applicazione contenuto nel primo comma dell’art. 1917 c.c.; inoltre il giudice bolognese traeva altro elemento a supporto della propria tesi dal venir meno del rischio, dell’alea che caratterizza necessariamente il contratto di assicurazione, soprattutto in prossimità della scadenza del contratto.
Nel 2004 invece il Tribunale di Crotone aveva inaugurato la controtendenza. Con sentenza del 8.11.2004 aveva infatti stabilito che : “… la clausola claims made ………riguarda (ndo) i reclami avanzati nei confronti dell’assicurato e notificati all’assicuratore per la prima volta durante il periodo di validità della copertura. La clausola comporta, quindi, una deroga del tutto legittima all’art. 1917, comma 1° c.c., non figurando tale disposizione tra quelle dichiarate non derogabili dall’art. 1932 c.c. “.
Infine, di recente, nel 2010, il giudice meneghino è tornato sulla questione dichiarando che la claims made è contratto tipico, ovviamente, in quanto tale, anche lecito.
In dottrina si sono creati due contrapposti fronti: l’uno sostiene la illiceità per assenza del rischio, forte della previsione dell’art. 1895 c.c. ; l’altro la sua piena liceità ravvisando il rischio come l’elemento insito nel fatto illecito che possa essersi verificato in passato e di cui l’assicurato, in buona fede, non sia a conoscenza ( questa tesi è stata ripresa dalla Cassazione nella menzionata sentenza n. 2872 del 13/2/2015 ).
Una panoramica all’estero, condotta con l’ausilio dello studioso della materia Nicolas Schüngel ( in : „Rechtsfolgen bei Unwirksamkeit des claims-made-Prinzips in der D&O-Versicherung „ ), consente di comprendere il percorso travagliato di una clausola che ha suscitato non pochi problemi, come vedremo, spesso risolti solo con l’intervento del legislatore.
Nel 1990 in Francia e nel 1991 in Spagna la claims fu dichiarata inefficace dalle Supreme Corti di quei Paesi. Dall’inizio del 2000 è stata adottata una legge in Spagna che legittima la claims se vi è un periodo supplementare di almeno un anno. Lo stesso è avvenuto in Francia nel 2003, a condizione però che vi sia una copertura illimitata per il passato ed una copertura supplementare di cinque anni, dieci per le professioni.
In Belgio è consentito ricorrere al claims se si tratta di tipo di r.c. per la quale con decreto sia stato consentito l’uso del claims made, inoltre sono obbligatori tre anni di copertura supplementare. In Svezia, curiosamente, in alcuni settori ( ad esempio il settore agenti di assicurazione per i quali vige obbligo di r.c. ) è obbligatoria la claims made purché con tre anni di copertura supplementare.
I sistemi europei, vedremo a parte la Germania, accettano quindi più o meno tutti una claims che offra un minimo di copertura anche dopo la scadenza.
Come visto in molti Paesi è stato il legislatore a legittimare la clausola claims.
In USA e GB, che possono essere considerate la patria del claims made, la clausola è riconosciuta senza alcuna riserva.
- La liceità della clausola per i giudici tedeschi
In Germania, sino al 2014, l’arresto era costituito da una sentenza del Tribunale – LG di München, 25.09.2008 – 12 O 20461/07, che aveva ritenuto la claims efficace e valida ma la questione era passata alla sezione speciale in diritto assicurativo della Corte d’Appello di Monaco di Baviera ( 25. Zivilsenat OLG München ) che ne aveva invece ritenuto la inefficacia in quanto clausola che consentiva all’assicuratore di limitare fortemente l’alea.
La sentenza dell’OLG München, 8.5.2009 – 25U5136/08, aveva avuto un nutrito seguito di sostenitori in dottrina ma poi non era approdata al vaglio del BGH (Giudice Supremo ) in quanto la questione non aveva superato lo scoglio dell’ammissibilità ed anche il reclamo non aveva avuto miglior sorte.
La sentenza della Corte Suprema di Karlsruhe è arrivata indirettamente quando la Corte si è trovata a dovere decidere la liceità di una clausola che, pur non essendo definita espressamente claims made, prevedeva comunque che il fatto-danno dovesse essere denunciato nel periodo di vigenza del contratto assicurativo. Fattispecie quindi del tutto assimilabile ad una clausola claims made.
Con decisione del 26.3.2014 ( IV ZR 422/12 VersR 2014, 625 ) i Giudici Supremi Tedeschi della quarta sezione hanno ritenuto che la clausola oggetto di verifica rientrasse nella piena autonomia negoziale delle parti e che non potesse essere soggetta ad alcuna censura sia con riferimento alla necessaria consistenza dell’alea (controllo sul contenuto – Inhaltskontrolle ) che con riferimento alla salvaguardia di trasparenza del contratto ( Transparenzkontrolle ).
Crolla in questo modo il paletto principale che era stato creato con la decisione del BGH di München : necessità di applicare, per la efficacia della claims made, il principio di compensazione ad esempio mediante la concessione di un lungo periodo di vigenza della copertura dopo la scadenza del contratto, la possibilità di comunicare “ notice of circumstances” o la copertura di un periodo sufficientemente lungo anteriormente alla stipula del contratto.
4. La prescrizione breve e le conseguenze della sua applicazione. Rimedi attuabili.
Stabilito che la clausola claims made risulta ormai essere lecita ed efficace, rimane da valutare il rischio di una sua applicazione in Italia quando, durante la sua vigenza, subentri la prescrizione breve di cui all’art. 2952, 3° comma, codice civile, senza che il contraente assicurato abbia provveduto ad interromperla.
Ciò potrebbe accadere in primo luogo in quanto l’assicurato, con buona ragione, potrebbe ritenere di avere tempo sino allo spirare della polizza per comunicare la denuncia all’assicuratore, ignorando l’incombere della prescrizione breve per mera ignoranza (le compagnie di assicurazione si guardano bene dal richiamare espressamente la norma sulla prescrizione breve nei contratti di polizza) oppure potrebbe accadere per negligenza dell’assicurato, o per volontà di non soccorrere il denunciante ove l’assicurato disconosca la propria responsabilità nella causazione del danno o, nella peggiore delle ipotesi, per dolo . Si pensi al caso dell’assicurato che, non avendo nulla da perdere, si accorda con l’assicuratore per evitare la denuncia in cambio di favori.
Quando il danneggiato sia straniero appare logico ritenere che la prescrizione breve non sia istituto che possa e debba essere noto ad esempio all’operatore commerciale di media diligenza.
L’operatore commerciale estero confida nel fatto di acquistare un prodotto coperto da polizza assicurativa per il rischio di difettosità, non sapendo di dipendere dall’adempimento del contraente/assicurato ad un obbligo di denuncia che, per l’art. 2952, deve essere tempestivo, oltre che, come termine di prescrizione, inusualmente breve per qualsiasi sistema giuridico.
E’ dunque di fondamentale importanza la conoscenza del termine di prescrizione breve applicabile in Italia ai casi di risarcimento del danno da responsabilità civile e la sua denuncia anche sostituendosi al contraente assicurato come è ormai possibile fare per consolidata giurisprudenza : “In tema di assicurazione, l’art. 2952, quarto comma, cod. civ., regolando in ogni suo aspetto il rapporto tra assicurato e assicuratore, stabilisce, quale regime speciale, la sospensione del termine di prescrizione sino alla definitiva liquidità ed esigibilità del credito del terzo danneggiato, con decorrenza non già dalla denuncia del sinistro, ma dalla comunicazione all’assicuratore della richiesta di risarcimento proposta dal danneggiato, che è efficace anche se proveniente dallo stesso danneggiato o da un terzo (Cassazione civile sez. III 26 febbraio 2014 n. 4548).
Va da se che l’operatore straniero danneggiato dovrà avere acquisito gli estremi della polizza assicurativa o meglio ancora la polizza stessa prima ancora di concludere il rapporto ad esempio commerciale dal quale poi sarà conseguito il danno.
Solo così potrà evitare le conseguenze di ogni forma di ostruzionismo eventualmente praticata dal danneggiante (conduttore/assicurato) nella denuncia tempestiva del danno, rammentando però che l’azione diretta verso l’assicuratore spetta solo in ben precisi casi previsti dalla legge ( ad esempio risarcimento da sinistro stradale ).
Arturo Gioffredi
by Law Firm GioffrediLA SOTTRAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE DI MINORENNI. ASPETTI GENERALI E CASO SPECIFICO DEL MINORE CONDOTTO IN GERMANIA
a cura dell’avv. Arturo Gioffredi
1. Definizione e quadro normativo
2. Il ruolo delle Autorità Centrali
3. Sottrazione di minore condotto in Germania
4. Consigli pratici in caso di sottrazione di minorenne
1. Definizione e quadro normativo
Si tratta di una materia della massima delicatezza per i risvolti drammatici che la sottrazione di minore ha, sia per i genitori, che per i figli, ai quali viene improvvisamente negato ogni contatto con uno dei genitori.
Per la legge, si ha sottrazione internazionale di minore (dei sedici anni ) quando il minore è stato illecitamente condotto all’estero ad opera del genitore non esercente l’esclusiva potestà sottraendolo dal luogo di residenza abituale. Identica ipotesi ricorre ovviamente in caso di mancato rientro del minore. Non importa quale sia la nazionalità del minorenne e non importano le nazionalità dei genitori. Rileva solo il luogo di residenza. Ne deriva che il minorenne residente in Italia riceve piena tutela anche se non è italiano purché sia stato condotto in altro Stato aderente alla Convenzione dell’Aja del 1980.
La materia è regolata dalle seguenti convenzioni internazionali, tutte esecutive in Italia ed in Germania :
Convenzione sugli aspetti civili della sottrazione internazionale di minori (L’Aja 25 ottobre 1980) che è quella di gran lunga più importante sia per stabilire se si tratti effettivamente di sottrazione, che per disciplinare la procedura per il rimpatrio dei minori e per l’esercizio del diritto di visita.
Convenzione sul riconoscimento delle decisioni in materia di affidamento dei minori e di ristabilimento dell’affidamento (Lussemburgo 20 maggio 1980) che si propone il riconoscimento transnazionale delle decisioni in materia di custodia e affidamento.
Convenzione in materia di protezione dei minori (L’Aja 5 ottobre 1961) che ha una regolamentazione meno specifica e si occupa di tutelare in generale i minori e i loro beni.
Completa il quadro normativo internazionale il Regolamento (CE) n. 2201/2003 del Consiglio (noto come Bruxelles II bis) che si applica dal 1° marzo 2005 e riguarda la materia della competenza, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia matrimoniale e in materia di responsabilità genitoriale, oltre che rafforzare e, per così dire, ammodernare le disposizioni di cui alla Convenzione dell’Aja del 1980.
Obiettivo dichiarato della Convenzione dell’Aja del 1980, come pure di tutte le altre regolamentazioni sopra elencate, è quello di proteggere il minore.
2. Il ruolo delle Autorità Centrali
Di fondamentale importanza sono le Autorità Centrali convenzionali istituite presso tutti gli Stati aderenti alla convenzione dell’Aja del 1980 .
In Italia, si tratta di :
Dipartimento per la giustizia minorile e di comunità
Ufficio II – Autorità Centrali convenzionali
Via Damiano Chiesa, 24
00136 ROMA
tel. +39 06.68188.326/331/535
fax. +39 06.68808085
e-mail: [email protected]
PEC: [email protected]
In Germania lo analogo ufficio è :
Bundesamt für Justiz
Referat II 3
Zentrale Behörde für internationale Sorgerechtskonflikte
Adenauerallee 99–103
53113 Bonn
Telefon:+49 228 99 410-5212
Fax: +49 228 99 410-5401
E-Mail: [email protected]
Il ruolo di grande importanza delle Autorità Centrali deriva dalla capacità di raccordo che esse hanno tra il genitore ed il sistema giurisdizionale degli Stati coinvolti, senza trascurare che talvolta è decisiva l’attività anche di scambio di informazioni tra le varie Autorità Centrali coinvolte.
L’articolo 15 della Convenzione dell’Aja assegna inoltre all’Autorità Centrale dello Stato di residenza abituale del minore un ruolo decisivo quando stabilisce che essa, se richiesta dalle Autorità Giudiziarie o Amministrative di uno Stato contraente, rilascia una decisione o attestato comprovante che il trasferimento o il mancato rientro erano illeciti.
3. Sottrazione di minore condotto in Germania
L’Autorità Centrale Tedesca di norma collabora con quella italiana e provvede anche ad allertare le Autorità di Polizia per la ricerca del minorenne.
Quando il minorenne sia stato rintracciato sul territorio tedesco l’Autorità Centrale provvede ad informare il giudice circa la domanda di rientro ricevuta tramite l’altra Autorità Centrale ( è ovvio che non vige alcun divieto a rivolgersi direttamente alla Autorità Centrale Tedesca ).
Nella prassi il Giudice Tedesco richiederà quasi sempre l’attestato di illiceità del trasferimento all’Autorità Centrale convenzionale, ossia quella del paese aderente di abituale residenza del minore.
E’ consigliabile quindi allarmare immediatamente sia l’Autorità Centrale dello Stato di residenza abituale del minore che quella dello Stato contraente dove il minore presumibilmente possa trovarsi, indicando, ove noto, il luogo dove il minore sia stato portato.
Ciò consentirà all’Autorità Centrale di rivolgersi al giudice competente ad ordinare il rientro del minore ( in Germania : Amtsgericht competente territorialmente; in Italia : Tribunale dei Minori del luogo dove si trova il minore ).
Nulla impedisce ovviamente di rivolgersi direttamente al giudice competente.
La procedura di volontaria giurisdizione dovrebbe essere, nelle intenzioni del legislatore, snella e poco formale.
Il termine per il rientro del minore sarebbe, in teoria, di sei settimane.
Nella prassi il termine, sia per reali esigenze di istruttoria che per strumentali tattiche dilatorie, non viene quasi mai rispettato. E con il passaggio dei mesi i minori vengono integrati nel nuovo mondo acquistando nuovi amici, frequentando scuole o asili, iscrivendosi ad attività sportive. Se da un lato l’integrazione rappresenta un bene per il minore, dall’altro, per il genitore rimasto senza figli, aumenta il rischio che, trascorso il periodo di un anno, che la convenzione individua come periodo limite per proporre la domanda di rientro, questa venga definitivamente respinta.
Tra le tattiche dilatorie più spregiudicate vi è quella del continuo cambio di residenza o domicilio del minore. Un genitore pieno di rabbia e frustrazioni accumulate nel paese dell’altro coniuge potrebbe arrivare a denunciare situazioni di pericolo per il minore, ove costretto al rientro.
Tale ipotesi è prevista infatti dall’articolo 13 della Convenzione dell’Aja come motivo valido per negare il rientro del minore.
In casi estremi possono arrivare persino accuse di maltrattamenti o addirittura molestie ai danni del minore di cui si sarebbe macchiato il genitore che abbia subito il trasferimento illecito.
Pare ovvio che il giudice ( anche quello tedesco ), dinanzi a simili accuse, non possa che procedere con estrema prudenza.
Le accuse aggravano la situazione psichica e psicologica del genitore rimasto solo, costretto peraltro, per difendersi dalle accuse infamanti, a sottostare ad una perizia che viene svolta nel luogo dove si trova il minore, con tutte le difficoltà logistiche ed ambientali che ne derivano.
La sentenza che ordina il rientro del minore è impugnabile dinanzi al Landgericht e, in Germania, non è provvisoriamente esecutiva ( rammentiamo che la sentenza del Tribunale italiano è impugnabile in Corte d’Appello ma è provvisoriamente esecutiva, salvo sospensione dell’esecuzione da parte della Corte d’Appello ).
Il minorenne quindi, in Germania, non rientra sino alla fine del giudizio di impugnazione.
Se il minore è in tenerissima età, ed ipotizzando che sia stata la madre a sottrarlo, non sarà di facile soluzione il problema pratico del rientro, soprattutto se la madre è stata denunciata e rischia l’arresto appena mette piede nel paese dove è avvenuta la sottrazione.
In tal senso è opportuno valutare caso per caso se inoltrare denuncia penale (art. 574 c.p.), soprattutto quando i minori si trovano già da tempo all’estero.
Altro elemento che riveste grande importanza anche pratica è l’ascolto del minore quando possibile ( il Regolamento Bruxelles II bis impone l’ascolto del minore ).
In Germania non è infrequente che i genitori siano inviati presso un mediatore che tenterà di individuare i conflitti e, possibilmente, le loro soluzioni.
Va da sé come sia di fondamentale importanza la partecipazione personale alle udienze che si svolgeranno dinanzi al Giudice Tedesco, anche eventualmente in fase di riesame.
4. Consigli pratici in caso di sottrazione di minorenne
Innanzitutto è necessario agire con la massima urgenza, rivolgendosi immediatamente alla Autorità Centrale del paese di residenza del minorenne che contatterà quella del paese dove è stato condotto il minore.
La sottrazione internazionale di minore ha luogo se compiuta dal genitore non esercente l’esclusiva potestà e quindi è importante conoscere e, in caso di dubbio, chiarire la situazione in materia di affidamento e diritto di visita del minorenne nel paese dove ha l’abituale residenza ed anche quella vigente nel paese di origine ( se straniero ) dell’altro genitore o in quel diverso Stato in cui l’altro genitore potrebbe portare il minore.
E’ importante tenere contatti e avere conoscenze con persone che si potrebbero trovare nel luogo in cui il minore possa essere condotto illecitamente ( ad esempio parenti dell’altro coniuge ).
Se vi dovesse essere fondato timore di ritenere che il minorenne possa essere sottratto è possibile assumere iniziative di carattere legale che renderanno più difficoltoso, ed in alcuni casi impossibile, l’espatrio del minorenne senza il consenso dell’altro coniuge .
Tra queste è possibile ad esempio negare l’autorizzazione all’espatrio del minorenne comunicando il divieto innanzitutto all’altro coniuge, possibilmente alla presenza di testimoni ( meglio se qualificati : avvocati, notai, autorità consolari ) e poi alla Questura per l’annotazione sul documento ( carta d’identità o passaporto ) del minore valido per l’espatrio.
E’ possibile inoltre rivolgersi al giudice ( che cambierà nelle diverse situazioni eventualmente già pendenti tra i genitori, ad esempio separazione, divorzio, affidamento ) per chiedere un provvedimento che vieti l’espatrio del minore senza l’esplicito consenso scritto di entrambi i genitori che, di solito, deve essere formalizzato in modo che sia garantita la reale volontà dei coniugi.
Ovvio che in presenza di un esplicito divieto dell’Autorità Giudiziaria le operazioni di rientro saranno più veloci non rendendosi, ad esempio, necessario interpellare l’Autorità Centrale circa la liceità o meno del trasferimento del minorenne.
Nella ipotesi di cui sopra è bene verificare che il divieto, tramite la Questura, risulti iscritto nelle liste di frontiera.
Il provvedimento che dovesse ordinare il rientro del minorenne non cambia la situazione preesistente in Italia e quindi sia nel caso di potestà genitoriale esercitata da entrambi i genitori che convivono o sono coniugati, che nel caso di affidamento condiviso del minorenne tra genitori separati ( divorziati ) o che abbiano cessato la convivenza, è consigliabile ricorrere al giudice, contestualmente alle suddette iniziative, per ottenere l’affido esclusivo.
Arturo Gioffredi
by Law Firm GioffrediLA COMPRAVENDITA IMMOBILIARE IN GERMANIA
a cura dell’avv. Arturo Gioffredi
Un mercato della casa molto interessante, soprattutto quello della città di Berlino, unito a mutui a tassi bassi, hanno portato sempre più investitori italiani a doversi confrontare con leggi e prassi molto diverse da quelle in uso nel bel Paese.
Le agenzie immobiliari in Germania
Individuato l’immobile con il fai da te o, come è più probabile, mediante un agente occorre, in questo ultimo caso, tenere presente che in Germania avviene spesso che l’agente immobiliare venga pagato dall’acquirente, meno frequente è il caso in cui le provvigioni siano suddivise anche con il venditore e raro invece quello che sia il venditore a pagare l’intero.
A differenza delle norme imperative che in Italia impongono all’agente immobiliare l’iscrizione al registro per avere il cosiddetto patentino, pena la perdita della provvigione, in Germania chiunque può fare l’agente immobiliare denunciando semplicemente l’inizio di un’attività ed il contratto di mediazione immobiliare può anche essere verbale.
La provvigione varia tra sei e sette punti percentuali ed è dovuta solo in caso di successo.
Precauzioni necessarie
La decisione di acquistare dovrebbe sempre essere preceduta da una perizia di valutazione del valore di mercato dell’immobile, del suo valore finanziabile ( che serve alla Banca in caso di finanziamento dell’acquisto ), dell’esistenza di ipoteche e di esclusione di eventuali vizi di rilievo.
Questo ultimo aspetto è molto importante perché dinanzi al notaio viene chiesta, di prassi, la completa liberatoria del venditore per eventuali vizi dell’immobile.
La differenza con la prassi notarile italiana che rimanda alle norme sulla garanzia previste dal codice civile è notevole.
Altra importante valutazione preventiva è quella riguardante il soggetto ( persona fisica o giuridica ) che dovrà acquistare
Costituire una società Tedesca può comportare vantaggi fiscali
Non è infrequente che anche per il semplice acquisto di un appartamento sia consigliabile costituire una società tedesca.
La forma societaria può diventare sempre più complessa mano a mano che l’investimento aumenta di importanza o per esigenze peculiari dell’investitore.
Passiamo così dalla GbR che è paragonabile, per certi versi, alla nostra associazione, alla KG che è una società in accomandita semplice, alla variante nella quale il socio accomandatario è una GmbH ( S.r.l ) che assume la forma di GmbH & Co. KG sino a giungere alla società di capitali pura, cioè la GmbH..
Dalla giusta scelta possono derivare grandi vantaggi fiscali o l’applicabilità o meno della tassa speculativa.
Le maggiori differenza tra una compravendita in Italia e in Germania
In Germania non esiste il preliminare di compravendita immobiliare e deve essere ben chiaro a chi contrae che il venditore potrà cambiare idea sino all’ultimo istante, secondo la classica impostazione del diritto anglosassone che non prevede responsabilità precontrattuale.
Il rovescio della medaglia per il venditore è che altrettanto potrà logicamente fare l’acquirente e che, per le spese notarili eventualmente già maturate, le parti rispondono in solido.
Accade quindi che il venditore, soprattutto se in posizione di forza, possa snobbare le offerte provenienti da stranieri, per il timore di dovere, in caso di mancata vendita, sopportare da solo eventuali spese già sorte.
Una soluzione, se fortemente interessati all’acquisto, può essere quella di versare al notaio una somma a garanzia delle spese.
Il compito del notaio Tedesco
Il notaio, dopo avere effettuato le ricerche sull’immobile presso il “Grundbuch”, appura innanzitutto che l’immobile sia vendibile e l’esistenza di eventuali iscrizioni ipotecarie che comunica prontamente all’acquirente insieme ad una prima bozza del contratto di compravendita.
Il contratto contiene molte clausole che possono essere oggetto di trattativa tra le parti. Gli aspetti più delicati sono ovviamente quelli del pagamento del prezzo ad un dato termine da quando il notaio comunicherà che si sono avverate tutte le condizioni contrattuali e della conseguente immediata iscrizione di una sorta di prenotazione di acquisto sul Grundbuch (Eigentumsvormerkung), che è atto di grandissima importanza per l’acquirente, che in questo modo rimane protetto nel periodo tra il versamento del prezzo ed il perfezionamento della trascrizione della compravendita sul Grundbuch.
Inoltre: il passaggio del possesso, dei frutti e degli oneri, l’esclusione dell’esistenza di servitù, vincoli o liti ignote, il passaggio delle polizze assicurative.
Errori da evitare
Un errore può comportare gravi perdite ed anni di cause. Può accadere che all’atto il venditore invii un soggetto privo di procura notarile che interviene con riserva di ratifica da parte del venditore.
E’ da evitare nella maniera più assoluta perché pone le parti in una situazione di disparità e spesso serve al venditore per coltivare altre trattative più redditizie ma ancora incerte nell’esito.
Quanto costa un notaio in Germania?
Il notaio potrebbe proporre di versare il prezzo su di un conto fiduciario che egli gestirà per il perfezionamento dei pagamenti ( alle Banche se vi sono debiti assistiti da ipoteca ed all’acquirente per la parte residua ).
E’ comodo ma ha un costo non indifferente, ad esempio per 250.000 euro sono da pagare al notaio 768 euro per la gestione del conto fiduciario.
Le tariffe notarili sono invece fissate dalla legge in quanto il notaio è funzionario statale e derivano da apposita tabella. Per avere un idea il notaio per una compravendita da 100.000 euro prende 650 euro.
La tassa di acquisto “Grunderwerbsteuer”
La tassa sull’acquisto ( in Italia nota come imposta di registro ) , detta “Grunderwerbsteuer” varia da regione a regione. A Berlino per esempio ammonta attualmente al 6 % come in molte altre regioni, ma in Baviera è 3,5 %, ad Amburgo 4,5 % ( situazione al 01.01.2015 ) .
Il riferimento è sempre il prezzo di compravendita dichiarato all’atto notarile.
Arturo Gioffredi
01.01.2015