Jurisdiction in disputes against foreign professionals

1. The facts

   The case, widely covered by legal news outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore, Quotidiano del Diritto and Altalex, concerns an Italian citizen who sued a French-qualified lawyer for alleged professional negligence. The claimant alleged breaches relating to a legal defense mandate performed on French territory. The proceedings culminated in an application for a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction before the United Sections of the Supreme Court. The foreign professional raised a preliminary objection contesting the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, arguing that under EU law the action had to be brought in France, where the intellectual activity was actually performed. The central issue does not concern the merits of the claim for damages, but rather the identification of the Member State whose courts hold jurisdiction.

2. The rules at play

   The legal framework is centered on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I-bis.

   1. Article 4 sets out the general rule of the actor sequitur forum rei, requiring persons domiciled in a Member State to be sued in the courts of that State.
   2. Article 7(1)(b) establishes a special jurisdiction forum for the provision of services, conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the place in a Member State where the services were provided or should have been provided.
   3. Article 41 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure allows parties to apply to the United Sections for a ruling on jurisdiction before the decision on the merits. The application of these rules determines whether an Italian client may bring proceedings before national courts or must initiate litigation abroad with associated financial and linguistic burdens.

3. What the case law says

   Supreme Court case law has clarified that, in respect of intellectual professional services, the decisive criterion is the prevalent performance of the service. The United Sections specified that neither the client's domicile nor the place where the damage manifested itself is relevant; instead, reference must be made to the place where the professional performed the primary part of the activity, such as analyzing case files, drafting legal documents, or attending hearings. This approach aligns with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which prioritizes the proximity of the court to the evidence and the predictability of jurisdiction. Case law further excludes the possibility that fee payments made from Italy could establish national jurisdiction, given that the characteristic obligation of the contract is the provision of the service rather than the payment of money.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Include an express choice-of-court clause in international contracts to resolve potential jurisdictional disputes in advance.
   2. Meticulously document the primary place of performance, maintaining records of operational offices, server locations, and physical meetings.
   3. Assess the costs and complexities of cross-border litigation prior to initiating legal proceedings against counterparts in other EU Member States.
   4. Determine whether the client qualifies as a consumer to evaluate the applicability of protective jurisdictional rules under EU law.

References: Regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012Articolo 41 Codice di Procedura Civile

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 23 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction