Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recognition of Foreign and Ecclesiastical Judgments

  • Chapter
Civil Procedure in Italy

  • 98 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter, after discussing the theoretical basis for the recognition of foreign judgments (14.01), and the types of foreign and ecclesiastical judgments that may be recognized (14.02–14.03), describes the prerequisites to (14.04–14.10), the procedure leading towards (14.11–14.13), and the consequences of (14.14), recognition. It further deals with the recognition accorded to foreign non-contentious judgments and orders (14.15–14.16), to foreign arbitral awards (14.17), and to foreign official acts and negotiable instruments (14.18), and with treaties that contain provisions affecting the recognition of foreign judgments (14.19–14.21). It ends with an examination of the recognition granted to ecclesiastical judgments (14.22–14.23).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D. Anzilotti, Dei casi in cui è necessario il giudizio di delibazione d’una sentenza straniera, LIII Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 1) col. 395 (1901); id., Note, Irivista Di Diritto Internazionale 354 (1907).

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Anzilotti, Dei casi, op. cit. supra note 1, at col. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Chiovenda, Principii Di Diritto Processuale Civile 307 (Napoli, Jovene 3d ed. 1923). See also P. Calamandrei, La sentenza soggettivamente complessa, in 2 P. Calamandrei, Studi Sul Processo Civile 211, 255 (Padova, Cedam 1930); A. Segni, Giurisdizione civile, VII Novissimo Digesto Italiano 1020 (Torino, Utet 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  4. For a discussion of the acceptance and development of this theory by other scholars and by the courts, see E. T. Liebman, L’azione per la delibazione delle sentenze straniere, IV Rivista Di Diritto Processuale Civile (part I) 283 (1927); R. Quadri, Sentenza straniera e sentenza di delibazione, Ii Archivio Di Diritto Pubblico 321 (1937). For an examination of the court decisions, see U. Bassano, Esame della nostra giurisprudenza circa il contenuto del giudizio di delibazione, II Rivista Italiana Di Diritto Internazionale Privato E Processuale 363 (1932).

    Google Scholar 

  5. On this expansive interpretation, see D. Anzilotti, Dei casi, op. cit. supra note 1, at col. 407.

    Google Scholar 

  6. This rule proscribes that any effect be given to a foreign judgment before local validation. For example, under this rule, a defense of res judicata cannot be based on a foreign judgment that has not been validated.

    Google Scholar 

  7. However, a foreign judgment might be used as documentary evidence rather than for its effect as a judgment. For example, it has been suggested that as mere documentary evidence a foreign judgment could be sufficient evidence to obtain a summary ex parte judgment. G. Morelli, Giudicato e documento nelle sentenze straniere, VI Rivista Di Diritto Processuale Civile (part Ii) 194, 201 (1929); id., Diritto Processuale Civile Internazionale 284–85 (Padova, Cedam 2d ed. 1954) and authorities cited; Colla Bollo Rato v. Amministrazione Finanze dello Stato, Corte d’appello, Genova, May 21, 1951, XCI Monitore Dei Tribunali 362 (1951) (dictum). See also note 106 infra and accompanying text. But see P. Calamandrei, La sentenza civile come mezzo di prova. in V P. Calamandrei, Studi Sul Processo Civile 147 (Padova, Cedam 1947).

    Google Scholar 

  8. This special proceeding is known as delibazione, from delibare, to taste. Although the Code no longer uses this term, it is still part of current usage.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See 14.13 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Both the older and more modern theories view the judgment of validation as a constitutive judgment which creates, modifies, or terminates a relationship (sentenza costitutiva). See 7.06 supra; G. Chiovenda, Principii, op. cit. supra note 3, at 306–07 (footnote); E. T. Liebman, op. cit. supra note 4, at 292–98; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 286–92; R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 335 et seq., 352; G. Pau, Delibazione, V No-Vissimo Digesto Italiano 363, 368 et seq. (Torino, Utet 1960) All the writers here cited, except the first, propound the view that an Italian judgment of validation is a constitutive judgment which makes the foreign judgment effective in Italy as a foreign judgment. The first cited author describes the judgment of validation as a constitutive judgment which converts the foreign into an Italian judgment. For sharp criticism of traditional views on the character of a foreign judgment, see N. Jaeger, Corso Di Diritto Processuale Civile 132–45 (Milano, La Goliardica 2d ed. 1956), who suggests a change in legislation rather than a new approach toward interpreting present legislation.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 296 n. 5. See also E. T. Liebman, op. cit. supra note 4, at 302; M. Giuliano, Il Fallimento Nel Diritto Processuale Civile Internazionale 310–14 (Milano, Giuffrè, 1943); G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 368–69. Contra, R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 327; R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione 128 et seq. (Padova, Cedam 1940), who adhere to the modern theory, but assert that the foreign judgment vacating the prior foreign judgment must be validated in Italy before it can be effective.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 299. For additional citations, see note 95 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 332–35. See also 14.10 infra. Some authors have reached the same conclusions as those stated at notes 11–13 on the basis of the old theory. See R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 323–31.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See 14.15–14.16 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See 14.12 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See 14.19 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See 14.22 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 303, 336 and authorities cited; S. Costa, Manuale Di Diritto Processuale Civile 87 n. 9 (Torino, Utet 2d ed. 1959); Proc. Gen. Corte appello Milano v. Fabbri e Nastasi, Corte di cassazione, July 22, 1960, No. 2086, XLIII Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 707 (1960) (note R. M. Saule).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Judgments issued by foreign criminal courts may be validated, even if civil sanctions are involved, but only through the procedures of article 12 of the Penal Code and article 675 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    Google Scholar 

  20. According to some Italian commentators, judgments that have not been rendered by a court of a foreign state, such as ecclesiastical judgments, even though they are valid in the state in which they were rendered, may not be validated in Italy. However, the courts have validated such judgments. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 305 ns. 1, 3; R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione, op. cit. supra note 11, at 73 et seq.; ad., L’efficacia in Italia del divorzio ebraico all’estero, XCVII Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 2) col. 81 (1945) (citing court decisions). Contra, A. C. Jemolo, Sulla possibilità di delibazione delle sentenze straniere di annullamento di matrimoni concordatari, LXXV Giurisprudenza Italiana (part Iv) col. 209, 209–14 (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 306; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 371–72.

    Google Scholar 

  22. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 307.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione, op. cit. supra note 11, at 31; G. Morelli, Doritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 307; R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 321, 343–45.

    Google Scholar 

  24. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 305 n. 2 and cases cited; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 363, 365. Italian writers and decisions are unanimous on this point.

    Google Scholar 

  25. For a discussion and citations, see R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione, op. cit. supra note 11, at 34.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 308–309. R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione, op. cit. supra note 11, at 32, 36. For a treatment in depth of bankruptcy in the conflict of laws, see M. Giuliano, op. cit. supra note 11.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Da Ros v. Moro, Corte d’appello, Venezia, Sept. 25, 1956, LXXX Foro Italiano (part I) col. 112 (1957) (note M.G.S.). The court set aside the sale, refusing to apply the ten-year period of limitation applicable to purchases under color of title. The same result was reached by the Court of Appeal of Trieste in a decision of March 30, 1960. Rep. Giustizia Civile, heading: Delibazione No. 29 (1961). For a note to a case under the old Code holding that a judgment appointing a receiver needed no validation to be effective in Italy, see V. Andrioli, La delibazione delle sentenze straniere di apertura di fallimento, XI Rivista Di Diritto Processuale Civile (part Ii) 182 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  28. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 309. Protetti, who denies that foreign judgments granting provisional remedies may be validated, points out that they may be used as evidence in an application for an Italian provisional remedy. E. Protetti, Delibazione (procedimento di), in III Enciclopedia Forense 52, 55 (Milano, Vallardi 1958). Such remedies are available in Italy in aid of foreign proceedings. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 4(3); see also A. Visco, I Procedimenti Di Giurisdizione Volontaria 494 (Milano, Giuffrè 5th ed. 1961) who asserts that judgments granting such remedies may not be validated but cites sporadic decisions holding that they may.

    Google Scholar 

  29. F. Carnelutti, NullitÀ Della Sentenza Derivata Da Processo Fraudolento, Xi Rivista Di Diritto Processuale Civile (part Ii) 46 (1934); G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 311.

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 306–07 (may not be recognized); 3 V. Andrioli, Commento Al Codice Di Procedura Civile 496 (Napoli, Jovene 2d ed. 1947) (may be recognized).

    Google Scholar 

  31. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 311; R. Monaco, Ilgiudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, XIX Rivista Di Diritto Processuale (part I) 77, 95–96 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  32. The phrase “principles of competenza giurisdizionale” is an awkward reference to rules of giurisdizione. On giurisdizione and competenza see also 4.02 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Article 797(1) explicitly adoptes the rule developed by a minority of the commentators under the old code. For the old minority view, see 5 L. Mortara, Commentario Del Codice E Delle Leggi Di Procedura Civile 51–55(Milano, Vallardi 4th ed.1923). For a discussion of the provision of the present code, see G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 315–18; R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 88–89.

    Google Scholar 

  34. It is immaterial on what ground the foreign court based its adjudicatory power. The judgment may be validated, if under any rule of Italian law, an Italian court could have exercised giurisdizione in similar circumstances. See T. Perassi, L’indipendenza dei criteri determinativi della competenza internazionale dai criteri di competenza giurisdizionale applicati dal giudice straniero, XV Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 454 (1936) (annotating a case to that effect); G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 315. Under this rule, if an American domiciled abroad is served with a summons to appear in a New York court while in transit at New York’s International airport, a resulting New York judgment may be validated in Italy, even though personal service within the state is not a basis for giurisdizione in Italy, on the grounds that the defendant is an American citizen and nationality is a basis for giurisdizione in Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The prevailing view is that an Italian court may not investigate whether the foreign state had jurisdiction, or the foreign court was competent, under the applicable foreign law. D. Anzilotti, L’indagine sulla competenza dello straniero nel giudizio di delibazione, LIII Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 1) col. 699 (1901); 1 F. Carnelutti, Istituzioni Del Processo Civile Italiano 70 (Roma, Foro Italiano 5th ed. 1956); R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 95; T. Perassi, op. cit. supra note 34; S. Costa, Manuale, op. cit. supra note 18, at 87. This view seems to overlook that in common law countries a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction or competence is ordinarily void and subject to collateral attack. See H. Smit, International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel in the United States, 9 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 44, 50–51 (1962); Note, 47 Cornell L. Q. 459 (1962). In Italy, a judgment rendered without giurisdizione or competence cannot be attacked collaterally once it has acquired formal res judicata effect.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See authorities cited at note 28 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Proc. Gen. Corte appello Trieste v. Zeriali e Kalpic, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), Sept. 18, 1961, No. 2086, XI Giustizia Civile 1525 (1961) (with a critical note by U. Iaccarino citing previous decisions to a contrary effect); Proc. Gen. Corte appello Milano v. Fabbri e Nastasi, cit. supra note 18.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See F. Carnelutti, Deroga e proroga del processo nazionale, XI Rivista Di Diritto Processuale (part II) 128 (1956); G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 321–22; M. Miele, L’accettazione della giurisdizione straniera ed il divieto della deroga convenzionale alla giurisdizione italiana, CVI Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 1) col. 389 (1954); R. Luzzatto, In tema di inderogabilità ed esclusività della giurisdizione italiana, XLV Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 527 (1962). For references to additional commentators, see the note by U. Iaccarino, note 37 supra. Contra, 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 505; R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 92–94.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Miele, quoting the Court of Appeal of Torino, in an effort to avoid the “monstrous situation” in which one spouse is free to remarry in a foreign country, while the other in Italy remains tied for life, has argued in support of a favor divortii. M. Miele, Il Riconoscimento Delle Sentenze Matrimoniali Straniere 93 n. 11 (Milano, Giuffrè 1949). However, the courts, particularly the Corte di cassazione, have applied every possible restriction to limit the recognition of foreign dissolutions of marriage. For a thorough discussion of the cases, see G. Magnani, Delibazione di provvedimenti giurisdizionali stranieri, XIII Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto E Procedura Civile 721 (1959). See also 14.10 infra. Since some of the courts, particularly the Court of Appeal of Torino, had failed to follow the Corte di cassazione, Parliament in 1950 amended article 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure to give the pubblico ministero the power to apply to the Corte di cassazione for review of proceedings to validate foreign matrimonial judgments, except those granting separations. See M. Cappelletti, Impugnazione del p.m. nelle cause matrimoniali o di delibazione di sentenze straniere in cause matrimoniali, LXXV Foro Italiano col. 732 (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  40. This provision was adopted largely in retaliation against article 14 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in effect that a French court is competent to adjudicate any case involving a French plaintiff. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 126. It should be noted, however, that the effect of Article 14 is minimized in regard to Italian nationals by a Franco-Italian convention. See 14.19–14.21 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  41. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 322–24; S. Satta, Diritto Processuale Civile 625 (Padova, Cedam 6th ed. 1959); 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 505. R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 90–92, takes no clear position on the matter, but, under the old code, had embraced a contrary view. R. Monaco, Il Giudizio Di Delibazione, op. cit. supra note 1 1, at 149–51. Sperduti takes the view that such a judgment may be validated only if the defendant in the foreign proceeding was an Italian. His view is based on the reasoning that since under article 4(4) only Italians may sue in Italy as plaintiffs, only judgments rendered against them, under similar provisions of foreign law may be validated. G. Sperduti, La reciprocità nella giurisdizione sugli stranieri e nel riconoscimento delle sentenze di Stati esteri, II Comunicazioni E Studi Dell’Istituto Di Diritto Internazionale E Straniero Della UniversitÀ Di Milano 223, 237–47 (Milano, Giuffrè, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Concordat of Feb. 11, 1929, art. 34; Law of May 27, 1929, No. 810. See 4.39 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  43. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 318–19. Article 23 of the Concordat, in referring to judgments of the tribunals of the Vatican City, provides that they are to be recognized in Italy under rules of international law, whereas the recognition of ecclesiastical judgments in matrimonial matters is part of the settlement of the relationship between Church and State within Italy. See A. Visco, op. cit. supra note 28, at 506.

    Google Scholar 

  44. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 318–19. But see Hager v. Rebutti e Proc. Gen. Milano, Corte di cassazione, June 11, 1959, No. 1785, XLIII Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 116 (1960) (a German judgment dissolving a Roman Catholic marriage celebrated in Italy held not recognizable because the German court lacked giurisdizione by Italian standards).

    Google Scholar 

  45. See 14.10, 14.22–14.23 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 797(2).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Scunck v. Horsfall, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), May 12, 1927, XIX Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 566 (note Morelli). The decision and the theory expressed by it have been strongly criticized. See D. Anzilotti, Note, Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 354 (1907); G. Chiovenda, Principii, op. cit. supra note 3, at 933–34; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 327.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Scheggi v. Compagnia Assicurazioni Zurigo, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), Apr. 19, 1961, No. 855, XI Giustizia Civile (part I) 1212 (1961). Article 805 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that foreign process may be served by an Italian ufficiale giudiziario after the approval of the pubblico ministero has been obtained. In this case, Swiss process was served without such approval. The court held that, since Swiss law did not make the validity of service dependent on Italian law, the Italian court would recognize the Swiss judgment based on such service.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See 7.10–7.13 supra. However, default judgments are subject to re-examination of the merits. See 14.12 infra.

    Google Scholar 

  50. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 326.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Italian law grants relatively generous periods for appearance, the lengths of which depend on where the person was located when service was made. The periods are:(1) thirty days, if the person to be served is in the district of the tribunal; (2) forty days, if he is outside that district, but within the district of the court of appeal of the tribunal; (3) sixty days, if he is elsewhere in Italy; (4) ninety days, if he is elsewhere in Europe or in a state bordering the Mediterranean; (5) one hundred eighty days if he is elsewhere. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 163 bis. See Petzetakis Eefterios v. Soc. Off. Fratelli Bertoli, Corte d’Appello, Venezia, Sept. 19, 1956, XL Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 428 (1957) (service in Italy leaving 60 days for appearance in a Greek proceeding held to grant insufficient time); Parent v. Giorgi and Ossidrica, Corte d’appello, Milano, Dec. 29, 1924, XVII Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 250 (1925) (service in Italy leaving 30 days from the date of issuance of citation in France for appearing in a French court held insufficient). The latter case is criticized in a note by Perassi who points out that the court ignored the treaty with France of Mar. 24, 1760, and a declaration interpreting it of Sept. 11, 1860. In the case of Scheggi v. Compagnia Assicurazioni, cited note 48 supra, the court held that Italian terms for appearance after service serve as a guide, but are not controlling. The specific time granted, held to be sufficient, was not mentioned in the reported decision. Whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to prepare his defense seems to be the controlling test. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 505.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 797 (3).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 1 F. Carnelutti, op. cit. supra note 35, at 70; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 328–29 and authorities cited.

    Google Scholar 

  54. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 295, 329. On the meaning of “final” in this context, see 14.06 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 797(6). For this rule to operate there must be an identity of parties and of the prayer for relief, but not of the legal basis for the relief sought. 2 P. D’onofrio, Commento al Codice di Procedura Civile 460 (Torino, UTET 4th ed. 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  56. G. C. Lombardo, Comunicazione alla conferenza sull’assistenza giudiziaria internazionale, Varese, 26–29 Agosto 1961, 29 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961). These dilatory tactics were even easier under the old Code of Civil Procedure. See G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 295; R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 98.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 797(7).

    Google Scholar 

  58. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 330–31; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 508. Contra, G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 374; G. Sperduti, Sul limite dell’ordine pubblico, XLIII Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 303 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Soc. Fornaci Stazzano v. Rancilio, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), May 3, 1957, No. 1494, VII Giustizia Civile (part I) 1537 (1957). Unlike the later decision, cited at note 64 infra, which refused to recognize a foreign judgment because of the type of evidence used, this was not a matrimonial case.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Law of July 7, 1905.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 334 –35; M. Miele, op. cit. supra note 39, at 92–93; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 508. Valborg v. De Mistura, Corte di cassazione, Feb. 6, 1961, No. 243, XLIV Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 485 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  62. See the cases concerning Swedish, Belgian, and American wives in Repertorio Giustizia Civile, heading: Delibazione nos. 41–46 (1960); G. Morelli, Riconoscimento di sentenza straniera di divorzio e legge regolatrice del matrimonio, in G. Morelli, STUDI DI DIRITTO PROCESSUALE CIVILE INTERNAZIONALE 407 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Della Valle v. Di Bella, Corte di cassazione (sez. un.), Oct. 27, 1953, No. 3504, Repertorio Giustizia Civile, heading: Delibazione Nos. 47, 49 (1960), also in LXXI Diritto Ecclesiastico (part II) 214 (1960). This case involved a dissolution of marriage based on the presumptive death of one of the spouses under New York’s Enoch Arden Law. Do. Rel. L. § 7. Under Italian law, the original spouse, upon his reappearance, is the legitimate spouse and the second marriage is dissolved. Since the New York rule is otherwise, the judgment of presumptive death was not validated.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Proc. gen. presso la Cassazione v. Monastero e Civiletti, Corte di cassazione , April 16, 1959, No. 1138, XLII Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 627 (1959) (critical note, Morelli). This decision and others like it have been strongly criticized as contrary to the literal wording of article 797(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The criticism seems recently to have modified the Court’s position. See M. Stella Richter, Recentissime di giurisprudenza, XV Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile 1030, 1035 (1961). See also notes 58, 59 supra and accompanying text.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Split citizenship is possible under Italian law if an Italian woman marries an alien whose national law does not grant his wife citizenship. Proc. Gen. App. Palermo v. R. e C., Corte di cassazione, Feb. 19, 1957, No. 582, VI Giustizia Civile (part I) 387 (1957) (note, M. G. Severini, at 1336). In this case, an American had been granted an annulment in Baltimore on the grounds that his Italian wife refused to join him and that the marriage had not been consummated. The spouses had been married in an Italian civil ceremony. Even though, in cases of religious marriages, annulments on such grounds are granted by ecclesiastical courts in Italy and recognized by the state, the court refused to recognize the annulment, since Italian civil courts cannot annul civil marriages on these grounds. The case represents the extreme public policy rule that if one spouse is an Italian national, Italian courts will not recognize a matrimonial judgment of dissolution that could not have been rendered by an Italian civil court. It was followed in Fasolo v. Stanley Wibour, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), May 16, 1960, No. 1171, Massimario Giustizia Civile 439 (1960). Yet, at least in the reported parts of the decisions in cases such as those cited at notes 37 and 63 supra, mention is made of neither these two decisions nor the principle involved. The only clear prior precedent seems to have been Massimi v. Bafia, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), March 6, 1956, No. 659, VI Massimario Giustizia Civile 229 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 14.03 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Accord, G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 418, 420, who refers to the Court’s decisions and to some of the many authorities on either side. The views vary depending on whether the foreign judgment decreed an annulment or a divorce, on the grounds of annulment, and similar circumstances. See A. C. Jemolo, Sulla possibilità di matrimoni concordatari, LXXXV Giurisprudenza Italiana (part IV) cols. 209, 214–22 (1933); G. Salvioli, Sentenze straniere di divorzio e il concordato con la S. Sede, XXIV Rivista di diritto Internazionale 539 (1932).

    Google Scholar 

  68. S. v. K., Corte d’appello, Trieste, March 22, 1952, 7 Foro Padano (part II) 47, No. 170 (1952). According to this court, the nationality of the parties is immaterial under the Concordat, and the only test is whether the marriage was celebrated in Italy by Roman Catholic rite. However, if the parties are Italian nationals, their divorce may not be recognized because of Italian rules of public policy rather than because of the Concordat alone. It has been held that even if the parties are Italian nationals, an annulment may be recognized if the grounds are among those recognized by Italian law. Rossetto v. De Rosa, Corte di cassazione, June 10, 1959, No. 1764, XLII Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 635 (1959) (recognizing Egyptian civil annulment of marriage of Italians married in Roman Catholic ceremony in Egypt.)

    Google Scholar 

  69. See 14.16 infra. Recognition of foreign judgments was held violative of public poicy in the following cases. Giorgi v. Schifter, Corte d’appello, Firenze, Apr. 17, 1953, Repertorio Giustizia Civile, heading: Delibazione No. 115 (1956). (Israeli annulment on grounds of disparity of religion said to be contrary to the “principles of equality held by all civilized peoples”); Vallinoto v. Magaldi, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), Aug. 30, 1952, No. 2793, XXII Massimario Giurisprudenza Italiana col. 746 (1952) (incompetent represented by same person who represented co-heirs with conflicting interests); Brancaccio v. Caputi, Corte d’appello, Napoli, Feb. 27, 1954, 69 Diritto E Giurisprudenza 229 (1954) (paternity action involving Italian nationals in which restrictive rules of article 248 of the Civil Code were not applied); Koh-I-Noor Tusckarna v. Soc. Craysons Hardmuth, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), Feb. 19, 1960, No. 286, XXIX Massimario Del Foro Italiano col. 66 (1960) (foreign nationalization decree not providing for compensation); Colla Bollo Rato v. Amministrazione Finanze dello Stato, cit. supra note 7 (tax judgment). For an extensive collection of cases dealing with public policy in connection with foreign judgments, see 4 Rassegna di Giurisprudenza sul Codice di Procedura Civile 361–67 (Milano, Giuffrè, V. Andrioli ed. 1955), and G. Magnani, op. cit. supra note 39, at 740–43.

    Google Scholar 

  70. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 293–94. Some authors maintain that only the plaintiff in the foreign action may initiate such a proceeding. G. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione, op. cit. supra note 11, at 115. However, the courts, particularly in divorce cases in which the plaintiff in the foreign action may not be interested in the effect of the judgment in Italy, have allowed either party to initiate the proceeding. It has even been held that such a proceeding may be brought to have a foreign judgment declared invalid in Italy. M. v. I., Corte d’appello, Bari, Feb. 5, 1957, Repertorio Giustizia Civile, heading: Delibazione No. 1 (1957). A few cases have held that an action to validate a foreign judgment may be brought by interested persons who were not parties to the foreign action. See A. Ruini, L’oggetto del giudizio di delibazione, l’azione di delibazione e l’interesse ad agire ne processo di delibazione, XXXIII Temi 29, 42 (1957). For the possibility of inter-vivos or mortis causa transfers of rights under a foreign judgment and their effects on the right to bring a proceeding to validate the judgment, see R. Quadri, Interesse ad agire, “legitimatio ad causam” e giudizio di delibazione, XV Rivista di Diritto Processuale Civile (part II) 154 (1937); A. Ruini, L’oggetto, supra, at 35 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Codice Civile art. 2946; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 293.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 796, para. 1. A foreign judgment dissolving a marriage must be validated in the district in which the marriage was recorded, even if its provisions relating to monetary obligations must be enforced elsewhere. See cases cited by G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 341 n. 1. Contra, 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 494. On the myriad of problems arising in this area, see G. Morelli, supra at 341–42; 2 P. D’onofrio, op. cit. supra note 55, at 448. Once validated, the judgment is valid throughout Italy. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 342; R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo Codice di Procedura Civile , cit. supra note 31, at 81; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 493.

    Google Scholar 

  73. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 346. For differing views on who are necessary parties, see also R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 82 n. 1; F. Carnelutti, Intorno al litisconsorzio necessario nel giudizio di delibazione, XVII Rivista di Diritto Processuale Civile (part II) 134 (1940); 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 496; S. Costa, L’intervento nel giudizio di delibazione, in II Scritti Giuridici in Onore Della Cedam 355 (Padova, Cedam 1953). Except for R. Monaco, these writers do not consider all parties to the foreign action necessary parties.

    Google Scholar 

  74. The pubblico ministero must always be made a party. Codice di Procedura Civile arts. 796, para. 3; 72, para. 2; 3 E. Redenti, Diritto Processuale Civile 438 (Milano, Giuffrè 2nd ed. reprint 1957); 1 F. Carnelutti op. cit. supra note 35, at 71.

    Google Scholar 

  75. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 303.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 3 E. Redenti, op. cit. supra note 74, at 435; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 347–48; S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 627.

    Google Scholar 

  77. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 348; 2 F. Carnelutti, Istituzioni del Processo Civile Italiano 1 (Roma, Foro italiano 5th ed. 1956); 2 P. D’onofrio, op. cit. supra note 55, at 448–49. For the view that procedures sui generis, following the pattern of those observed in the courts of appeal and the tribunals, must be improvised, see A. Visco, op. cit. supra note 28 at 483.

    Google Scholar 

  78. G. Chiovenda, Principii, op. cit. supra note 3, at 1144; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 338 n. 1, 348; S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 627.

    Google Scholar 

  79. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 345; A. P. Sereni, L’assistenza giudiziaria internazionale in materia civile con speciale riferimento alle relazioni italo-statunitensi, XV Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile 772–73 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 798, para. 1. See generally G. Barile, Riesame del merito della lite nel giudizio italiano di delibazione, XXII Annuario di Diritto Comparato e di Studi Legislativi 251 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  81. The grounds specified in article 395 are: (1) fraud committed by one of the parties to the damage of the other; (2) falseness of documentary evidence on which judgment is based; (3) availability of decisive documentary evidence prior production of which was prevented by vis major or the fault of the adversary; (4) error of fact on which the judgment is based clearly shown by the record of the case; (6) fraud of the judge determined by a final judgment.

    Google Scholar 

  82. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 336 n. 2; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 511.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Article 798 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes this clear. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 336. Although third parties may intervene, they may not apply for re-examination of the merits. Saltamerenda v. Gianini and Carpanetti, Corte di cassazione (sez. I), Feb. 10, 1956, No. 401, VI Giustizia Civile (part I) 1078 (1956), also in XL Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 277 (1957) (note G. Barile).

    Google Scholar 

  84. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 338, disagreeing in this respect with F. Carnelutti, N. Jaeger, and G. Barile, maintains that, since the court of appeal must decide the dispute de novo, the merits may here be re-examined only if the court has adjudicatory power under the ordinary rules of giurisdizione. Accord, 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 510. Contra, 2 P. D’onofrio, op. cit. supra note 55, at 464–65. See also S. Costa, Delibaaione con riesame del merito, III Rivista di Diritto Processuale (part I) 17 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  85. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 338; S. Costa, op. cit. supra note 84, at 26–27; R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 353.

    Google Scholar 

  86. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 339–40. If the foreign judgment is vacated abroad, an Italian judgment rendered upon re-examination of the merits is not vacated automatically. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 340; cf. note 11 supra and accompanying text.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See note 12 supra and accompanying text; note 95 infra and accompanying text.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 799. Although the Code does not require it explicitly, it has been suggested that joinder of the pubblico ministero is necessary. 3 E. Redenti, op. cit. supra note 74, at 438.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 799, para. 1; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 284, 344.

    Google Scholar 

  90. The Code of 1865 did not contain a provision allowing recognition of a foreign judgment in a pending proceeding. For the reasons advanced for the inclusion of such a provision and the theoretical grounds opposing more extensive effect, see G. Chiovenda, op. cit. supra note 3, at 935–40.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Codice di Procedura Civile art. 799, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Tabocchini v. Rainieri, Corte d’appello, Firenze, June 7, 1958, XLI Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 463 (1958). See generally A. Ruini, Sulla possibilità della delibazione incidentale di sentenze straniere in materia di stato delle persone, XLII Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 349 (1959); G. Sperduti, Riflessi nell’ordinamento italiano di conflitti fra leggi e sentenze di più stati in materia matrimoniale, LXXXIV Foro Italiano (part I) col. 1371 (1959). See also S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 625. In another case, in which plaintiff relying on his wife’s prior Swedish marriage and the invalidity of a Mexican divorce purportingly dissolving that marriage, sought annulment of his marriage, it was held that a judgment of divorce may not be recognized or declared invalid except in a special proceeding of delibazione. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the Mexican divorce action and probably had no standing to bring a special proceeding, the result of this holding was to deprive plaintiff of relief by an Italian court, although, in the view of the court, he was clearly entitled to an annulment. Apparently, plaintiff’s only remedy would be to bring an action in Sweden and seek validation of a judgment in his favor in Italy. Rossellini v. Bergman, Corte d’appello, Roma, July 2, 1959, XVI Rivista di Diritto Processuale 144 (1961), with a critical note by F. Carnelutti, aptly entitled, Il matrimonio Rossellini-Bergman e Ponzio Pilato. The case is also reported in LXXXIV Foro Italiano (part I) cols. 1176 and 1364 (critical note G. Sperduti). In support of the view that, in a pending proceeding, a person who was not a party to a foreign action may not seek recognition of the foreign judgment, see G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 344. Contra, 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 496, who asserts that any interested person may seek such recognition in a pending proceeding.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Valborg v. De Mistura, supra note 61.

    Google Scholar 

  94. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 300–02; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 370. On the concept of substantive secondary effects of a judgment, see E. T. Liebman, Efficacia ed AutoritÀ Della Sentenza 49 et seq. (Milano Giuffrè 2d ed. 1962); S. Satta, Gli effetti secondari della sentenza, XI Rivista di Diritto Processuale Civile (part I) 251, with examples at 254 (1934). It has been suggested that American courts, when determining the effect to be given to foreign judgments, should apply domestic rather than foreign rules of res judicata. H. Smit, Sull’efficacia di cosa giudicata delle sentenze straniere negli Stati Uniti, XIII Jus 108, 125 (1962). This suggested rule is applied in Italian practice. Validated foreign judgments may be recorded for the purpose of creating a lien on Italian property. Codice Civile art. 2820.

    Google Scholar 

  95. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 503; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 299; G. Chiovenda, op. cit. supra note 3, at 307; E. T. Liebman, L’azione per la delibazione, op. cit. supra note 4, at 302; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 368. It has been held that a marriage entered into in Italy without the prior validation of one spouses’s foreign divorce or annulment, is valid retroactively upon a subsequent validation. Visconti di Modrone v. Adani, Corte d’appello, Milano, April 1, 1960, XXVI Temi 589 (1960). See also Bonazza v. Heru, Corte di cassazione, July 22, 1943, No. 1912, XLV Repertorio Giurisprudenza Italiana, heading: Delibazione No. 4 (1943).

    Google Scholar 

  96. See 10.09–10.10 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  97. See note 76 supra and accompanying text.

    Google Scholar 

  98. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 301, points out that, under articles 398, para. 1, and 405, para. 1, of the Code, the competent court to hear such an attack on the judgment is the court that rendered it and that, since that court is outside Italy, no such attack is possible in Italy. Accord, R. Quadri, op. cit. supra note 4, at 353–55. However, Carnelutti, reasoning by analogy, states that the court that has validated the foreign judgment would be competent. F. Carnelutti, Opposizione di terzo contro sentenza straniera riconosciuta in Italia, XI Rivista di Diritto Processuale Civile (part II) 34, 41 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  99. See note 11 supra and accompanying text.

    Google Scholar 

  100. See 13.05–13.12 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  101. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 353–54.

    Google Scholar 

  102. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 354. Explicitly following Morelli is P. Ziccardi, Sul riconoscimento di atti stranieri di volontaria giurisdizione in materia di adozione, XCIX Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 2) cols. 201–04, 207–09 (1947); id., Considerazioni sul valore delle sentenze straniere, XXXVII Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 487 (1954). If merely private effects of the judgment are in issue, this author extends Morelli’s arguments beyond the field of voluntary jurisdiction into the subject of recognition of all types of foreign judgments.

    Google Scholar 

  103. C. G. Raggi, L’Efficacia Degli Atti Stranieri di Volontaria Giurisdizione 168 (Milano, Giuffrè 1941). See also G. Franchi, Osservazioni sulla delibazione di atti stranieri di giurisdizione volontaria, in Studi in Memoria di Lorenzo Mossa (Padova, Cedam 1961) (with up-to-date bibliography). Franchi points out, at 6–7 of the reprint, that when a minor’s goods must be sold at auction in Italy, which requires the assistance of Italian officials, a prior validation is required. But at 8 et seq., 22, he adopts Morelli’s view, that under Italian conflict rules constitutive effects of a foreign order, such as the appointment of a guardian, may be recognized without a validation proceeding.

    Google Scholar 

  104. See G. Sperduti, Funzione delle norme di diritto internazionale privato e rilevanza interna degli atti stranieri d’amministrazione pubblica del diritto privato, VI Rivista Di Diritto Processuale (part I) 213, esp. 243 et seq. (1951) (formulation somewhat similar to Morelli’s); E. Allorio, Saggio polemico sulla “giurisdizione” volontaria, II Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto E Procedura Civile 487, 521 n. 80 (1948) (substantially follows Raggi). See also G. Pavanini, Problemi di diritto internazionale in ordine ai procedementi di giurisdizione volontaria, in Atti Del Congresso Internazionale Di Diritto Processuale Civile 30 Settembre-3 Ottobre 1950 331 (Padova Cedam 1953); id., Limiti della giurisdiziona italiana nei procedimenti di giurisdizione volontaria, IV Rivista Di Diritto Processuale (part I) 175, 206 et seq. (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  105. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 521–22; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 366; R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 110–11.

    Google Scholar 

  106. In an interesting case involving the validity of a will executed and probated in Pennsylvania, the Corte di cassazione stated, in passing, that if an American executor wished his status to be recognized in Italy a validation proceeding would be necessary. It further noted that American probate decisions were generally relied on in Italian courts as proof of American law concerning the validity of the will probated, rather than for their effect as judicial determinations of the validity of the will. Zaffarano v. Di Monte, Corte di cassazione, April 13, 1959, No. 1089, XLII Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 621 (1959). Concerning the use of foreign judgments as documentary evidence rather than as judicial determinations, see also G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 284 n. 3; note 7 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  107. The other subsections presuppose contentious proceedings and judgments capable of res judicata effect. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 522; G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 352. But see G. Franchi, op. cit. supra note 103, at 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ricorso Rescaldini, Corte d’appello, Milano, Feb. 20, 1950, XXVII Temi 119 (1951) (note M. Giuliano in accord), also in V Foro Padano (part I) 516 (1950) (note G. Cansacchi).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Ricorso Angelotti, Corte d’appello, Ancona, July 6, 1960, XLIII Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 721 (1960). See also P. Ziccardi, op. cit. supra note 102, at col. 199, 210 (suggesting that, if a foreign adoption is not an adoption in the Italian sense, it may still be recognized in Italy with only its foreign effects without validation); R. Monaco, Il riconoscimento in Italia delle adozioni all’Estero, CII Giurisprudenza Italiana (part I, sec. 2) col. 188 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  110. See case noted by P. Ziccardi, op. cit. supra note 102, at col. 199, and C. G. Raggi, Il riconoscimento degli atti di volontaria giurisdizione dopo l’entrata in vigore dell’attuale codice di procedura civile, III Foro Padano (part I) 237 (1948). But see Case of Lee Beam, Corte d’appello, Brescia, Dec. 11, 1954, XXXIX Rivista Di Diritto Internazionale 199 (1956) (holding that an Alabama adoption violated Italian public policy because under Alabama law: (1) the adopted child loses all rights and obligations towards his actual parents; (2) the adopting parents may secure a revocation of the adoption within five years for specified infirmities of the child; and (3) the age difference permitted by Alabama law is less than the 18 or 16 years required by Italian law) (note Pau).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Codice Civile art. 291. As a general rule, a parent cannot adopt his or her illegitimate child. Codice Civile art. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  112. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 352; 1 F. Carnelutti, Istituzioni, op. cit. supra note 35, at 73; S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 629; 3 V Andrioli, op. ctt. supra note 30, at 522; S. Costa, op. cit. supra note 18, at 89 n. 12. The court holdings are to the same effect. See collection in G. Magnani, op. cit. supra note 39, at 761, and see Ricorso Angelotti, cit. supra note 109.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Fochesato v. Fochesato, Corte di cassazione (sez. Ii), Sept. 5, 1959, XV Rivista Di Diritto Processuale 92 (1960) (note Morelli); F. Franchi, op. cit. supra note 103, at 10. Morelli’s critical note, Delibazione incidentale di atti di giurisdizione volontaria? reprinted in G. Morelli, Studi Di Diritto Processuale 457 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961) advances strong arguments against the position of the Court. The Court’s position on this point should not be considered final.

    Google Scholar 

  114. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 352–53.

    Google Scholar 

  115. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 348–49, interprets “foreign” to refer to the legal system under which the award and judgment were issued, even if the arbitration took place outside the territory in which that system operates; for example, in Italy. Contra, R. Monaco, Il giudizio di delibazione secondo il nuovo codice di procedura civile, op. cit. supra note 31, at 104; S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 627 n. 1; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 518 (“foreign” if judgment was rendered abroad).

    Google Scholar 

  116. The judgment must meet all the conditions set forth in Article 797. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 516. The merits underlying such judgments may be re-examined under the same conditions under which re-examination of the merits underlying any foreign judgment is proper. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 349. The foreign arbitration proceeding, rather than the foreign judicial proceeding that resulted in the judgment on the award, must be examined to determine whether it meets the requirements of article 797. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 518.

    Google Scholar 

  117. This rule is modified in many international agreements. See 14.19–14.20 infra. An agreement supplementing the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of Feb. 2, 1948, with the United States, ratified in 1961, provides that an arbitration agreement between citizens, corporations, or associations of the two countries is not invalid merely because the arbitration is to take place outside the national boundaries of the contracting states nor because the nationality of the arbitrators is not that of the contracting states.

    Google Scholar 

  118. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 349; 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 517. If the foreign legal system invests an arbitration award with the effects of a judgment without requiring judicial confirmation, the award may be validated in Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 806, referred to in Article 800. In turn, Article 806 implicitly refers to article 1966 of the Codice Civile. See 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 517.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 474; Codice Civile art. 2699; Royal Decree of Dec. 14, 1933, No. 1669, art. 63, para. 1; Royal Decree of Dec. 21, 1933, No. 1736, art. 55, para. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Codice Di Procedura Civile art. 804 (for public acts); Royal Decree of Dec. 14, 1933, No. 1669, art. 63, para. 2 (for negotiable instruments known as cambiali); Geneva Convention of June 7, 1930, art. 4 (Law of Aug. 25, 1932, No. 1130) (cambiali); Royal Decree of Dec. 21, 1933, No. 1736, art. 55, para. 2 (checks).

    Google Scholar 

  122. G. Pau, in A. P. Sereni, G. Venturini, G. Pau, A. Bernardini, Relazione alla conferenza sull’assistenza giudiziaria internazionale, Varese, 26–29 agosto 196r, 80 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961). See also G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 26; G. Arangio-Ruiz, Cambiale (Diritto internazionale privato), V Enciclopedia Del Diritto 921, 938 (Milano, Giuffrè 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  123. 3 V. Andrioli, op. cit. supra note 30, at 524.

    Google Scholar 

  124. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 358.

    Google Scholar 

  125. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 357.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  128. 3 E. Redenti, op. cit. supra note 74, at 442. Contra, G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 355–59; S. Satta, op. cit. supra note 41, at 630. Validation of a deed transferring property in Italy, made in the United States, has been held possible. Annunziata v. Annunziata, Corte d’appello, Napoli, Nov. 26, 1951, Repertorio Foro Italiano, heading: Delibazione Nos. 18, 19 (1952). A deed transferring real property may be made in the United States in Italian form; that is, in the form of a contract made by public act, in the Italian sense of these terms. When the regularity of the instrument and of its due execution is certified by an Italian consular official (Decree of the President of the Republic of Aug. 2, 1957, No. 678, art. 11), it does not require validation by a court of appeal. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 356, points out that an Italian consular instrument is not a foreign instrument. Conversely, an instrument made by or before a foreign consular official in Italy is a foreign public act within the meaning of Article 804.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Examples include the Treaty of March 9, 1937, No. 106 with Germany, executed by the Law of Jan. 14, 1937, re-executed by exchange of notes of Nov. 20, 1952; Hague Convention of June 12, 1902, Law of Sept. 7, 1905, No. 523; Geneva Convention of Sept. 26, 1927 concerning arbitral awards, Law of July 18, 1930, No. 1244. See G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375, 377.

    Google Scholar 

  130. G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 362; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 367. On the relationship between treaty provisions and legislative provisions dealing with foreign judgments, see G. Morelli, Coordinamento fra norme relative al riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere, VII Giurisprudenza Comparata Di Diritto Internazionale Privato 303 (1941). For the possible effect on recognition of American judgments of the most favored nation clause of the Italian-United States Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of Feb. 2, 1948, see Durst Mfg. Co. v. Banca Commerciale Italiana, Corte di cassazione, July 3, 1960, No. 2228, X Giustizia Civile (part I) 1541 (1960) (discussed at 15.02 infra).

    Google Scholar 

  131. See generally G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 360–421; E. Cucinotta, L’Assistenza Giudiziaria Nei Rapporti Internazionali 154 et seq. (Milano, Giuffrè 1935); G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375–77.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Articles 43 of both conventions. Law of June 28, 1955, No. 916, superseding the Treaties of Rome of November 23, 1933, and made operative by Law of April 11, 1935, No. 1588.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Articles 55 of both treaties. For a discussion of similar rules in the now superseded Rome treaties, see G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 238, 364–65; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Law of Sept. 7, 1905, No. 523.

    Google Scholar 

  135. See G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 234–36, 368–72; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375. It is unclear whether the general rule that in case of conflict between treaty provisions and the Code of Civil Procedure the rule more favorable to recognition governs, is applicable to this convention. See citations in G. Morelli, supra, at 370–71.

    Google Scholar 

  136. See 14.10 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Law of Sept. 7, 1905, No. 523.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Law of June 27, 1909, No. 640.

    Google Scholar 

  139. On these two conventions, see G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 231–34, 372–73 and G. Pavanini, Limiti, op. cit. supra note 104, at 216–17, who disagree as to whether the convention on infant’s guardianship matters provides rules of exclusive giurisdizione.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Law of July 18, 1930, No. 1244.

    Google Scholar 

  141. See G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 373–78, esp. 378; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375; L. Marmo, Arbitrato (Diritto internazionale privato), II Enciclopedia Del Diritto 965, 971 (Milano, Giuffrè 1958) (discussing bilateral conventions with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands (not ratified), Germany, San Marino, and the U.S.S.R.).

    Google Scholar 

  142. Article 28 (1) of the Convention provides: “L’action en responsabilité devra être portée, au choix du demandeur, dans le territoire d’une des Hautes Parties Contractantes, soit devant le tribunal du domicile du transporteur, du siège principal de son exploitation ou du lieu où il possède un établissement par le soin duquel le contrat a été conclu, soit devant le tribunal du lieu de destination.” The Convention was made operative in Italy by the Law of May 19, 1932, No. 841.

    Google Scholar 

  143. A. Migliazza, La Corte Di Giustizia Delle ComunitÀ Europee 255–69 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961); R. Monaco, Comunità europea del carbone e dell’acciaio, VIII Enciclopedia Del Diritto 337, 340 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961) (with extensive bibliography); G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 378; G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 375–76.

    Google Scholar 

  144. For an enumeration, see L. Marmo, Relazione alla conferenza sull’ assistenza giudiziaria internazionale di Varese 15 (Milano, Giuffrè 1961); G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 363–64. Most of these treaties are reprinted in Ministero Degli Affari Esteri, L’Italiano Nel Mondo E La Sua Condizione Giuridica (Roma, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 2 Vols. 1955) and in M. Miele, Le Convenzioni Internazionali Relative Al Processo Civile (Milano, Giuffrè 1955 with 1959 supplement). For a country by country discussion, see E. Cucinotta, op. cit. supra note 131, at 154–210. See also J. C. De Bavier, L’Application En Italie De La Convention Italo-Suisse Du 3 Janvier 1933 (Lyon, M. Audin 1948); M. J. Lappas, L’exÉcution Des Jugements D’aprÈs La Convention Francoitalienne Du 3 Juin 1930 (Paris, Domat-Montechrestien 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  145. Romania, Tunisia, Honduras, Peru, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Nicaragua. Treaties with Bolivia and Argentina vary slightly from the others. A treaty with Spain departs even more from the general norm. See G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 379–83.

    Google Scholar 

  146. The treaties with Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, and S. Marino provide for automatic res judicata effect. Those with Turkey, Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands do not. For a full analysis of these treaties, see G. Morelli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 383–416. See also G. Pau, op. cit. supra note 10, at 376–77. The treaty with the Netherlands has not been ratified. See M. Miele, op. cit. supra note 144, at 63.

    Google Scholar 

  147. G. Moralli, Diritto, op. cit. supra note 7, at 384. The treaty with San Marino provides for a simplified validation proceeding. See G. Morelli, Diritto, supra at 415.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Ratified by the Law of May 27, 1929, No. 810. Implemented by the Law of May 27, 1929, No. 847. For other problems regarding the Concordat, see 14.07, 14.10 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Art. 34, para. 5 of the Concordat. See A. C. Jemolo, Il Matrimonio 349–50 (Torino, Utet 3d ed. 1957); A. Visco, op. cit. supra note 28, at 507.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Art. 34, para. 6, of the Concordat and art. 17, para. 1, of the Law of May 27, 1929, No. 847; A. C. Jemolo, op. cit. supra note 149, at 350.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Depending on the grounds, it must be signed either by one or by both. A. Visco, op. cit. supra note 28, at 508.

    Google Scholar 

  152. A. C. Jemolo, op. cit. supra note 149, at 352–53 (pointing out that according to a minority view the judgment may not be recognized, if it violates public policy). For the minority view, see A. Visco, op. cit. supra note 28, at 507–08.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Law of May 27, 1929, No. 847, art. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  154. A. C. Jemolo, op. cit. supra note 149, at 359.

    Google Scholar 

  155. This decision and similar ones have been severely criticized by the leading ecclesiastical legal scholar in Italy. A. C. Jemolo, op. cit. supra note 149, at 359 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Mauro Cappelletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph M. Perillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1965 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cappelletti, M., Perillo, J.M. (1965). Recognition of Foreign and Ecclesiastical Judgments. In: Civil Procedure in Italy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6273-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6273-1_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-5825-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6273-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation