Michele Mordiglia, partner of the Mordiglia Law Firm and member of the IR Global network, published an article on Trade Winds magazine, in which he analyzes the issue of arrest of ships in accordance with Italian law. Here the link and the comment published on Trade Winds along with the full article: https://www.tradewindsnews.com/legal/1810055/untying-the-knot-of-italian-ship-arrest-law; Trade Winds, 19 June 2019; Trade Winds, IR Global, 3 June 2019.
Marco Lopez de Gonzalo, partner of Studio Legale Mordiglia, published an article on the recent Nori Holdings v. Bank Otkritie case, regarding the role of the anti-suit injunctions as protection of arbitration proceedings, raised before English courts for the first time after the entry into force of Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012. In fact, with the introduction of the aforementioned Regulation, and in particular with its recital 12, we were led to wonder if something had changed in the context of the exclusion of the arbitration pursuant to art. 1.2.b), with reference to the admissibility of anti-suit injunctions, so as to question again the conclusions reached in this regard by the Court of Justice with the West Tankers judgment, issued when the previous Regulation 44/2001 was in force. With the sentence “Nori Holdings”, Mr. Lopez highlighted in his article how the English High Court has nevertheless confirmed what was held in the “West Tankers” judgment, empathizing the essential steps, including in particular the fundamental principle of mutual trust between the jurisdictions of the Member States, stating that the West Tankers judgment “remains an authoritative statement of EU law”.
On Thursday 16 May 2019, Pietro Palandri, partner of Mordiglia Law Firm, will give a lecture at the Propeller Club of Monaco entitled: “Costa Concordia FAQ“, related to the tragic accident occurred at Giglio Island on January 13th 2012. The event, arranged by Propeller Club of Monaco, will see the participation of numerous representatives of the maritime world.
On 13 and 14 May 2019, the “Blue Economy Summit – II edition” will be held in Genoa. Studio Legale Mordiglia has been a sponsor of this event since its first edition (www.besummit.it ). During the session “Technological evolution: development of open innovation and start up paths” on Tuesday, May 14, in the Hall of Representation of Palazzo Tursi, Marco Lopez de Gonzalo will give a lecture on “Maritime law and technological evolution: the case of autonomous ships”.
SLM recently assisted a shipowner sued by a cargo insurer who claimed the reimbursement of the salvage compensation, amounting to euro 6 million, paid by the insurer in favor of the salvor who assisted the vessel and the cargo after a fire broke out in the engine room. The Tribunal of Genoa with judgement dated 22.1.2019 rejected the claim declaring it time barred. The Tribunal held that the claim in tort against the actual carrier (shipowner) other than the contractual carrier was subject to the same regime, the Hague Visby Rules, governing the liability of the carrier including the one year time bar period. Such decisions was rendered on the basis of a non-recent decision of the Court of Cassation, according to which the HVR applies both to the actual and the contractual carrier, and under the Himalaya clause included in the bill of lading which gave the shipowner the benefit of all contractual and law provisions applicable to the carrier.
On 19th September 2018, Mirko Scapinello and Filippo Pellerano gave a lecture during the master degree course on marine and transport insurance (MASMET) organized by the Genoa University in cooperation with various operators and practitioners in the shipping market. The lesson, which has taken place at P. L Ferrai & Co. premises in Genoa, focused on the interactions between the insurance covers in the context of big casualties like the Costa Concordia and the Norman Atlantic.
The Court of Appeal of Milan recently held that the general rule consisting in the recognition of the right of action for damages to cargo exclusively in favour of the consignee who asked the carrier for delivery (art. 13 CMR and art. 1689 of the Italian Civil Code), also stands in case of partial delivery. The right of action is, in fact, transferred to the consignee upon delivery (or upon request of delivery) and it is irrelevant that delivery then only takes place partially, being the obligation of delivery an indivisible obligation.
Nel fascicolo 1/2018 della rivista Diritto del Commercio Internazionale è pubblicato un articolo del prof. avv. Marco Lopez de Gonzalo dal titolo “Le clausole
Article 31 of the Montreal Convention requires, in case of loss or damage of baggage, that a complaint “in writing” is made within 7 days, failing which “no action shall lie against the carrier”.
In the context of proceedings before the Finnish Supreme Court, the question arose whether a complaint made by phone by the passenger and recorded in writing by the air carrier would satisfy the requirement of art. 31 of the Montreal Convention.
The ECJ, in a judgement issued on 12 April 2018 (case C-258/16, Finnair v. Fennia), having noted that the Montreal Convention aims to “an equitable balance”, held that the requirement of art 31 of the Montreal Convention is satisfied if a complaint is recorded in the information system of the carrier or when, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the carrier has recorded the declaration of loss made orally by the passenger either on paper or electronically.
With judgment dated 20th December 2017, in proceedings n. C-434/15, the EU Court of Justice ruled that the service provided by Uber is an intermediation service, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers that use their own vehicle and persons who wish to make urban journeys. Uber services must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as “a service in the field of transport” within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31.