Interim measures in Italy

1.1.1 Interim measures are mainly governed by the Italian Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Italian Civil Code (CC). In order to determine whether provisions other than the CPC are (also) applicable to an interim measure (for instance, the Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1 As of 10 January 2015, the said Council Regulation replaced the Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. ) the applicant has to check the following two issues:

1. (i) whether the claim or the interim measure have an international nexus; and
2. (ii) whether there are special provisions for the particular type of claim.

1.1.2 For international cases, the provisions of Italian Law No 218/1995 on Private International Law (PIL), international treaties and European law supersede the CPC. These provisions relate foremost to jurisdiction and enforcement.

1.1.3 Furthermore, specific provisions are applicable in the following areas:

• For interim measures regarding damages from car accidents, the Code of Private Insurance applies; 2 Italian Legislative Decree No 209/2005.
• For interim measures regarding industrial property issues, the Italian Industrial Property Code applies; 3 Italian Legislative Decree No 5/2005. and
• For interim measures regarding bankruptcy cases, the Bankruptcy Law applies. 4 Royal Decree No 267/1942, art 108.

2.1.1 Generally, the court having jurisdiction for the substantive proceedings is competent to rule on interim measure proceedings as well. Before the substantive proceedings are pending, the applicant may file the request with any court that has jurisdiction over the substantive case. Once the substantive proceedings are pending, the applicant must file the request with the court already charged with the case.

2.1.2 When the substantive proceedings have already been concluded by judgment and the period in which an appeal may be made has commenced, the judge who rendered the first instance judgment has jurisdiction to order interim measures.

2.1.3 Interim measures may be requested from state courts even if arbitration proceedings relating to the same right(s) are pending or the dispute is subject to an arbitration clause. Since arbitrators cannot normally grant any interim measure, 5 CPC, art 818. the Italian CPC confers jurisdiction for interim measures upon the court that would have jurisdiction over the substantive proceedings if there were no arbitration clause.

2.1.4 If the substantive proceedings are pending before a foreign court and the Italian court does not have jurisdiction over the substantive case, Italian courts still have "precautionary powers", provided that the interim measure is to be executed in Italian territory 6 PIL, art 10. . The applicant should file the request at the place where the interim measure will be enforced, with the Italian court that would have jurisdiction given either the value or the subject matter of the case.

2.2.1 Jurisdiction for interim measures cannot be derogated from by the parties, therefore no jurisdiction clause contrary to the above rules can be validly entered into by the parties or enforced by the courts. 7 CPC, art 28.

2.3.1 A specific subject matter jurisdiction emerges in two particular cases, concerning

1. (i) precautionary measures provided for in the Italian Intellectual Property Code; and
2. (ii) employment disputes.

2.3.2 As to industrial property issues, the Italian regulations 8 In particular, Italian Legislative Decree No 168/2003. established special courts in some specific Tribunals and Appeal Courts which deal with interim proceedings as well. In addition to the ordinary measures, special interim measures are provided for by the Italian Intellectual Property Code. In particular, the special courts may:

• order the description and the seizure of all the items which are infringing the applicant's rights and those which are used to fabricate the offending items;
• order the respondent to refrain from carrying on with the acts which infringe or would infringe the applicant's intellectual property rights and take the goods constituting infringement off the market;
• order the assignment to the applicant of the infringing domain name that had been illegally filed.

2.3.3 Employment courts having jurisdiction for employment disputes are competent to grant provisional measures as well. The measure must be requested by petition to the employment court at the place where the imminent and identifiable damage could occur.

2.4.1 Should more than one court have jurisdiction, the claimant will be able to choose where to commence the proceedings.

2.4.2 In this regard the important elements to be taken into account when making this choice are the average duration of proceedings in the respective jurisdictions and the place where the measure has to be executed.

3.1.1 In Italy, interim measures can be divided into three categories: preventive measures, possessory measures and provisional measures.

3.2.1 A preventive measure aims to neutralise the risk of suffering damage as a consequence of the duration of the proceedings. Such measures are temporary in nature, as the "preventive" right remains valid until the issuance of the final judgment which replaces it.

3.2.2 The following preventive measures exist:

• judicial and preventive seizure;
• prevention of new work and the prevention of feared damage;
• preventive taking of evidence; and
• urgent measures (so-called "atypical" or "subsidiary" measures).

3.2.3 Judicial seizure 9 CPC, art 670 para 2(1). may be ordered by the judge with regard to movable or immovable property, businesses or other types of goods or property, when their ownership or rightful possession is disputed, and such a measure is necessary in order to regulate the temporary custody and management of such property.

3.2.4 Preventive seizure 10 CPC, art 671. allows a creditor whose prospects of success in the substantive proceedings appear likely (so called fumus boni iuris) and who has a well-founded fear of losing the security of his credit or loan (periculum in mora) to request the court to authorize the seizure of movable or immovable property of the debtor or of the sums and goods due to him/her.

3.2.5 Where new work is commenced on property (whether the work is on the same land or on that of a third party), a person having reason to fear that its ownership, limited rights in rem or rights of possession are endangered by such work, that person may ask the court to issue an order preventing the work from continuing or otherwise addressing the applicant's concerns. 11 CC, art 1171. Such application may be made provided that the work has not been terminated or completed, and the application is made less than a year after the start of the work that is the subject of the applicant's complaint.

3.2.6 A similar rule is provided for in the case of feared damage. 12 CC, art 1172. Where a person having reason to fear that its ownership, limited rights in rem or rights of possession are seriously endangered by any building, tree or other item, the applicant may request and obtain from the court, according to the circumstances, an order that seeks to obviate the risk of any damage being caused.

3.2.7 The "urgent measures" play a complementary role to abovementioned "typical" measures. This type of order provides protection for areas which are not covered by the "typical measures". A person who has a well-founded fear that, during the time needed to enforce its rights in ordinary proceedings, its claim or right is threatened by imminent and irreparable prejudice may apply to the court to obtain the interim measure which, according to the circumstances, is most appropriate to provisionally ensure that the final judgment may be enforced. 13 CPC, art 700.

3.3.1 Within the rules relating to interim proceedings in the CPC, also possessory proceedings are included. Two types of actions can be distinguished:

• Action for recovery of possession 14 CC, art 1168. ; and
• Action to protect possession 15 CC, art 1170. .

3.3.2 The first one entitles the person who has been forcefully or secretly deprived of his/her possession to sue the liable party in order to recover possession. The action may also be filed by joint possessors, heirs 16 Court of Busto Arsizio, 9 February 2010. , landlords, as well as qualified contractual parties such as contractors and tenants. The lawsuit must be filed within a year of the date the dispossession occurred: if the latter occurs secretly, the term will start from the discovery of the wrongful act. When the dispossession occurs in a forceful way, the term starts from the moment the breach ends.

3.3.3 In respect of an action to protect possession, the person disturbed in his/her possession of immovable property, a real right in immovable property, or a sum total of movables is entitled to start an action to protect his/her possession. The lawsuit must be filed within a year from the disturbance.

3.4.1 Italian Law provides for three types of provisional measures: (i) an order for payment of sums not challenged 17 CPC, art 186-bis and 423. , (ii) an injunction, 18 CPC, art 186-ter. and (iii) an order subsequent to the end of the preliminary investigation 19 CPC, art 186-quater. .

Order for payment of unchallenged sums

3.4.2 In ordinary proceedings that are pending, once all the parties have appeared before the court, and upon request, the court may issue an order for payment of those sums which are not challenged by the counterparty. Such admission from the counterparty must be unconditional. The order is enforceable from the date on which it is made.

3.4.3 This type of order can be amended or revoked. First, this means that the order does not automatically determine the final decision and is subject to amendments and revocable by the court which has issued it. Secondly, the sum provided for by the order is not excluded from the substantive proceedings entirely and must still be taken in consideration when making the final decision, albeit only for the purpose of confirming what has already been decided and paid. If the substantive proceedings are terminated, the order for the payment of unchallenged sums remains enforceable.

3.4.4 The issuance of an order for the payment of unchallenged sums can be requested in labour proceedings as well.

Application for an injunction

3.4.5 The precondition for making an application for an injunction is that the applicant creditor is able to provide written evidence of the debt he is owed.

3.4.6 Subject to the provision of written evidence of the right that he claims (for example, his entitlement to payment of the debt), the applicant, by means of an injunction order, can obtain (i) payment of an amount of money which is objectively and easily determinable, (ii) delivery of a certain amount of equivalent goods, or (iii) delivery of identifiable and specific movable property.

An order following a preliminary investigation

3.4.7 Once the preliminary investigation stage of court proceedings has been concluded, upon the request of the party claiming for the payment of sums or for the delivery or the release of goods, the court is entitled to grant a payment order or an order to deliver or transfer goods to the extent that the applicant's entitlement to such sums or goods is deemed already proven at that stage of the proceedings.

3.4.8 Although the order is granted at the end of the preliminary investigation, it remains revocable by the final judgment, and thus it does not prevent the court from rendering a different decision on matters covered by the order once the substantive proceedings have been completed. Moreover, the court is entitled to deny the applicant such order if considering the application and making a decision would be complex and time-consuming.

3.5.1 The preliminary or preventive taking of evidence by the court is allowed prior to the commencement of the main substantive proceedings.

3.5.2 An order of this nature is not aimed at neutralising the risk of damage that may result from the duration of the proceedings. The objective is to secure evidence in advance to avoid impossibility or difficulty in proving facts in subsequent proceedings (as a result of destruction or loss of the evidence in the interim), and thus protecting the rights of the parties to submit evidence and make out/defend the claims made. The CPC allows the preventive taking of evidence in the following situations:

• examination of witnesses in cases where there is a well-founded fear that one or more witnesses are terminally ill. 20 CPC, art 692.
• an inspection of things and places; 21 CPC, art 696.
• a technical appraisal 22 CPC, art 696. ; and
• the securing of documents. 23 CPC, art 670 para 2(2).

3.6.1 Ex parte measures are an exception to the adversarial principle according to which the counterparty must be heard prior to the decision of the court. Such an exception is applicable only when, due to the particular nature and intensity of the danger, the involvement of the respondent would jeopardise the enforcement of the interim measure. For instance, an ex parte measure may be ordered if the involvement of the respondent might endanger the effectiveness of the interim measure (e.g. there is a risk that the respondent disperses, conceals or sells its assets). The risk at stake shall be indicated in the reasoning of the decree by which the judge grants the ex parte measure.

3.6.2 The risk must be imminent and not imputable to the applicant. Should the applicant's conduct have increased that risk and/or his prompt action would have allowed the participation of the respondent, the court may deny the ex parte measure.

3.6.3 The decree whereby the court grants the measure, in addition to confirming the necessary grounds, must ensure the subsequent involvement of the respondent by scheduling an adversarial hearing within a period not exceeding fifteen days, and by ordering a deadline of not more than eight days to inform the respondent. At that hearing, the court may confirm, amend or revoke the ex parte order.

Form of the request

4.1.1 Whether lodged prior to or after the initiation of substantive proceedings, the application for interim measures must be filed in writing in the form of a petition. 24 CPC, art 669 bis.

Content of the request

4.1.2 According to the general rule set out in Article 125 CPC, the petition must indicate the court having jurisdiction, the parties to the proceedings, the object of the claim and related grounds (including any known defences to the claim), as well as the arguments and conclusions that the party intends to submit to the judge.

Enclosures to the request

4.1.3 The applicant may submit any evidence relevant to assessing the interim measure requested. 25 CPC, art 669 sexies. Further evidence can be admitted at any time and in whatever form and by whatever means deemed appropriate by the judge.

4.2.1 Preventive measures proceedings are regulated by the principle of simplification of the procedure, which gives wide procedural discretion to the judge. During the consideration of the petition, the judge must omit any formality unless it is necessary to safeguard the right to be heard of the respondent and the principles of cross-examination 26 CPC, art 669 sexies. .

Standard of proof

4.3.1 The applicant must demonstrate:

• the plausible and likely existence of the right that he intends to raise in the substantive proceedings (so called "fumus boni iuris"), and
• the risk that the duration of the substantive proceedings jeopardises such right (so called "periculum in mora").

Limitation of evidence

4.3.2 The CPC does not establish any specific limitation on evidence in this phase; all types of evidence that are allowed during the main proceedings are likewise admissible in interim proceedings.

4.3.3 Generally, the following types of evidence are allowed: documents, requests for information to the public authorities, inspections of things and places, expert opinions, interrogation of the parties involved in the proceedings, and/or witness examination. The judge may deem it sufficient to decide upon the request for interim measures on the basis of the summary information and the documents already provided by the parties.

4.3.4 The judge must assess the value of the various types of evidence submitted according his experienced judgment 27 CPC, art 116. . The judge may also draw conclusions from:

• answers given by the parties in an informal interrogation;
• any unjustified refusal of a party to allow an inspection ordered by the judge;
• the attitude of the parties in the process (such as breach of good faith during the proceedings both by the parties and their attorneys, for example, if they are obstructive).

5.1.1 The respondent appears before the court by filing a response that can be filed before or on the day of the first hearing. He may request that, in the event that the measure is granted, the order requires the applicant to provide security in order to cover any possible damage that might be ascertained in the substantive proceedings.

5.1.2 While the applicant has to credibly demonstrate the facts of his case, the respondent needs only to put forward substantiated allegations sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the applicant's allegations.

5.1.3 According to certain Italian case law, the response may contain a counterclaim for interim measures 28 Italian Supreme Court, 24 June 1994, No 6013. . Such a counter application is allowed provided that it does not interfere with the principles of speed and effectiveness of the proceedings. 29 Court of Reggio Calabria, 31 October 2007, Court of Florence 23 July 2001. However, other case law has found such applications inadmissible, because it is deemed incompatible with the summary nature of interim proceedings. 30 Court of Florence, 25 March 2002.

5.2.1 Having assessed all the relevant circumstances, in its order which grants, confirms or modifies a request for interim measures, the court may request security from the applicant for the damage that may be suffered by the respondent. 31 CPC, art 669 undecies. Such security is intended to restore the balance between the parties given the provisional nature of the measure imposed by the court.

5.2.2 Security may be ordered by the court when ordering an ex parte measure or after having heard the respondent. The court must rule on the request for security after having assessed all the circumstances. Further, if the court orders security, it needs to evaluate all those facts and events that are deemed to be helpful in order to determine the amount of the security.

5.2.3 The court must indicate the reason for the security, how it is to be provided and in particular the deadline within which the applicant must post it. Upon expiry of this period, the measure becomes ineffective if no security is provided. 32 CPC, art 669 novies.

5.2.4 If the court deems security unnecessary, or the amount is considered insufficient, the respondent may submit a special complaint ("reclamo"). Equally, the applicant may submit such a complaint if the security is considered too costly and could jeopardise the effectiveness of the interim measure that has been granted 33 CPC, art 669 terdecies. .

5.3.1 The respondent's interests are also safeguarded by his right to seek compensatory damages in the event of an unjustified interim measure. Should the court ultimately find in the respondent's favour and deny the right for which the interim measure was granted, the applicant claimant or creditor may be ordered to pay damages in the event he is found to have acted without ordinary care. 34 CPC, art 96.

6.1.1 The conditions required for obtaining an interim measure are the same whether or not the main case is already pending. Should the measure be applied for before the substantive proceedings are pending, the court, by the order granting the interim measure, must set a deadline of a period no longer than sixty days for the commencement of the substantive proceedings. Should no date be set by the court, the substantive proceedings must be compulsorily commenced within sixty days running either from the date of the hearing at which the measure was granted or the date when the measure was communicated to the parties by the clerks. In the event that the substantive proceedings are not commenced within the above deadline, this interim measure will be rendered automatically ineffective. In the event that the dispute is subject to an arbitration clause, the party, within sixty days, must serve on the counterparty his/her intention to commence the arbitration as well as a notice of the appointment of his/her arbitrator.

6.1.2 The above mentioned periods within which to commence the substantive proceedings do not apply to urgent measures and other measures which are specifically provided for by the CPC in order to anticipate the effects of a final judgment, as well as measures for the prevention of new work or feared damage.

6.2.1 Generally, requests for interim measures are decided within 30 – 40 days, which can be reduced in the case of an application for an ex parte measure or due to the particular urgency of the matter submitted to the court. On the other hand, there are cases where the issuance (or denial) of an interim measure takes considerably longer, for instance when there is a lack of urgency. The measures imposed usually last until the date of final judgment in the substantive proceedings.

7.1.1 The applicant should take into account court costs, party compensation and the actual costs of its own representation. The court costs consist of both the fee for the enrolment of the case with the court, which is calculated based on a national rate determined in accordance with the value of the claim, and the legal expenses related to the management of the case in general, with the exclusion of disbursements for professional fees.

7.1.2 Party compensation includes compensation for professional fees and reimbursement of necessary expenses. Compensation for professional representation is calculated based on national rates and criteria set down by law. The amount of the compensation is usually based on the amount in dispute as well as on the complexity of the case.

7.2.1 The court may demand from the claimant an advance up to the amount of the expected court costs. It is only at the end of the legal proceedings, following the judgment concluding the trial and ruling on the costs, that the prevailing party will be entitled to the repayment of costs paid in advance.

7.2.2 The advance payment of costs is usually deemed a burden and not an obligation of the concerned party, so in circumstances where the costs are not paid the efficacy of the interim measure may be lost 35 CPC, Article 669 nonies, para 3. . Orders relating to the advance payment of the costs cannot be appealed. The final judgment must also rule on repayment of costs paid in advance.

7.2.3 Moreover, by virtue of the judgment concluding the interim proceeding, should the measure be granted, the court may also order to the claimant to give a security of the counterparty's compensation 36 CPC, Article 669 undecies. .

7.3.1 Before the beginning of the substantive proceedings, both in cases where the interim measure has been granted or denied, the court must decide on the costs of the interim measure proceedings 37 CPC, arts 669 septies and 669 octies. . In general, where a request for an interim measure is fully granted, the respondent must bear all costs. If a request is partially admitted, the costs can be allocated proportionally.

8.1.1 All interim measures granted by the court may be modified or revoked upon a respective request of the party subject to the measure. By means of such a request, for example, in light of new facts or circumstances, a party may request that the court reviews the decision granting the imposition of the interim measure 38 CPC, art 669 decies. .

8.1.2 The party may request the modification or the revocation of the interim measure provided at least one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

a material change in the circumstances of fact or law which alters the grounds on which the measure was granted. Changes related to the necessary conditions for the granting of the interim measures ("fumus bonis iuris" and "periculum in mora") are deemed as material changes;
new facts that the party has learned only after the granting of the interim measure. In such a case, the party must evidence those facts and prove the time at which it became aware of them.

8.1.3 The concerned party must submit a revocation or modification application by means of a written petition or a verbal request at a hearing. The court will then make an order to reject the request or revoke or modify the interim measure. If revoked, the interim measure is annulled. If modified, the interim measure will be expanded or reduced either quantitatively or qualitatively.

8.1.4 According to some Italian case law such an order can be challenged 39 Court of Turin, 20 November 2001; Court of Ravenna, 26 May 2000; Court of Lucca, 13 October 1999; Court of Padova, 12 November 1998. , while other case law denies such a possibility. 40 Court of Palermo, 4 July 1997. Should a foreign judge or an arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction in respect of the substantive proceedings, the interim measure must be modified or revoked by the judge who issued it. 41 CPC, art 669 decies, para 3.

Complaint ("Reclamo")

8.2.1 The order granting an interim measure may be challenged through a complaint submitted in order to obtain a new ruling by a judge other than the one who granted the original measure. 42 CPC, art 669 terdecies. An order denying an interim measure may also be challenged through a complaint. As to ex parte measures, the prevailing theory 43 Court of Milan, 15 May 2001. allows a complaint to be made against the order rejecting the interim measure, but excludes this for an order granting it. Therefore, an adversarial hearing is only allowed in order to grant the rights of the respondent within the trial (see above, 3.6.3).

8.2.2 The losing party (either the applicant or the respondent) may submit a complaint, as well as any concerned third party and any other parties which must be necessarily summoned in certain proceedings according to law. A complaint against an interim measure:

• ordered by a single judge of the court must be submitted to a collective board of the same court, of which the judge who has granted or denied the interim measure cannot be part;
• ordered by the court of appeal must be submitted before another division of the same court of appeal or, failing that, before a different court of appeal that is legally considered as the closest geographically. 44 CPC, art. 669 terdecies.

8.2.3 The appealing party must show the circumstances and reasons for its complaint. The court can always autonomously gather information and acquire new documents without a request or presentation by the parties.

8.2.4 The complaint must be submitted within the deadline of fifteen days from the date of the issuance of the order at the hearing or of its notification or communication to the counterparty. As to any third parties not involved in the interim measure proceedings, the deadline starts when it becomes aware of the order.

8.2.5 The court shall rule on the complaint by court order, not later than twenty days from the filing of the appeal. The order may confirm, modify or revoke the interim measure 45 CPC, art 669 terdecies, para 5. . It is also possible that the court may grant the interim measure previously denied by the first judge.

8.2.6 The new ruling replaces the appealed ruling. The decision on the complaint is also provisional in nature. The new order can be revoked and modified, and loses effectiveness once the substantive judgment on the merits is issued.

8.2.7 The filing of a complaint does not suspend the enforcement of the interim measure. However, in the event that the enforcement of the interim measure causes serious damage due to new facts which have occurred subsequent to the first decision, the parties may request the suspension of the interim measures during the complaint procedure. The court may grant the suspension or subject the ongoing effectiveness and enforcement of the interim measure to the payment of security. 46 CPC, art 669 terdecies, para 6.

8.2.8 The decision on the complaint cannot be challenged before the Supreme Court. 47 Italian Supreme Court, 27 April 2010, No 10069; Italian Supreme Court, 20 November 2009, No 24543; Italian Supreme Court, 8 March 2006, No 4915.

9.1.1 The enforcement of the interim measure varies according to its subject. Usually, enforcement proceedings are commenced by notification of a "writ of execution" that is served on the respondent.

9.1.2 The CPC establishes special rules for seizures. When the interim measures relate to a sum of money, the enforcement is carried out in the form of seizure. If the respondent was at the hearing or has been notified of the order granting the interim measure by the clerks, he will already have received the writ of execution.

9.1.3 The competent court is the enforcement court, identified according to the following criteria: 48 CPC, Articles 26, 26 bis.

• if the object of the enforcement is movable and immovable property, the competent court is the one in whose territory the properties are located (forum rei sitae);
• if the object of the enforcement execution is a vehicle, the competent court is the one in whose territory the respondent has its residence, domicile, abode or office;
• if the object of the enforcement is an obligation to do or refrain from doing anything, the competent court is the one in whose territory the obligation must be executed;
• if the object of the enforcement is a third party's debts, the competent court is the one in whose territory the third debtor (e.g. a bank) has its residence, domicile, abodes or office; and
• if the object of the enforcement is any other kind of credit, the competent court is the one in whose territory the debtor has its residence, domicile, abode or office.

9.1.4 The Civil Procedure Code also indicates the competent court for those cases that allow an opposition against the interim measures (and the execution in general). In those cases, the competent court is the enforcement court itself, as indicated above. 49  CPC, Article 27. Case law mostly excludes the possibility of appeal against enforcement. 50 Italian Supreme Court, 12 December 2003, No 19101, Italian Supreme Court, 11 January 1988, No 26.

9.1.5 If the interim measures relate to an obligation to deliver or release goods, or to do or not to do something, the judge must specify the method of execution. There are no separate enforcement proceedings. The judge issuing the measure has jurisdiction with respect to enforcement. 51 Italian Supreme Court, 12 January 2005, No 443; Court of Trani, 17 September 2009.

9.2.1 If the interim measure was issued in a Member State of the European Union, enforcement follows the Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 52 The Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is largely identical to the Lugano Convention concerning relations with Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. For decisions issued in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, the Lugano Convention applies. For all other cases, enforcement follows the rules of PIL.

Enforcement under the Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

9.2.2 According to European case law, interim measures can be deemed as a decision in accordance with the Council Regulation. 53 ECJ, C-54/96, 17 September 1997.

9.2.3 In particular, an enforceable judgment given in a Member State ordering a provisional, including a protective, measure will be enforceable in the other Member States without any special procedure being required 54 Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 36. , provided that the applicant shall provide the competent enforcement authority with:

1. (i) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity;
2. (ii) the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of the Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, containing a description of the measure and certifying that:
   • the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter;
   • the judgment is enforceable in the Member State of origin; and
3. (iii) where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, proof of service of the judgment.

9.2.4 A judgment shall not be recognised:

• if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public order in the Member State in which recognition is sought;
• where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
• if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought; and
• if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed. 55 Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 45.

9.2.5 A specific procedure is provided by the Council Regulation should there be a dispute of the decisions. The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction for such procedures. 56 Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 47.

Enforcement under the PIL

9.2.6 The recognition and enforcement of the decisions of courts from countries which are not members of the European Union or the Lugano Convention is governed by PIL.

9.2.7 Italian commentators tend to exclude the possibility of Italian courts recognising an interim measure issued in a country which is neither part of the European Union nor a party to the Lugano Convention.

10.1.1 An interim measure may be required before a state court even though arbitration proceedings relating to the same right are pending or the dispute is subject to an arbitration clause. In fact, since arbitrators are not entitled by law to grant any interim measure, 57 CPC, art 818. the Italian CPC confers jurisdiction upon the court that would otherwise have jurisdiction in respect of the substantive proceedings. This rule applies both when the suit before the arbitration court is not yet commenced 58 Court of Milan, 9 July 2009 No 81629; Court of Catania, 23 January 1995. and when the arbitral proceedings are already pending. 59 Appeal Court, 25 January 1994.

10.1.2 In circumstances where there is an arbitration clause providing for international arbitration, the applicant shall file the request with the Italian court which would have jurisdiction to consider the value or the subject of the case, at the place where the interim measure shall be enforced 60 Court of Venice, 6 July 1998. . Applications to the national courts for interim measures do not suspend the arbitral proceedings.

10.2.1 If the arbitral tribunal has its seat in Italy, the arbitrators are not entitled to grant any interim measure. 61 CPC, art 818.

10.3.1 While the 1958 New York Convention governs the recognition and enforcement of any foreign arbitral award in Italy, interim orders are not final and, for this reason, do not qualify as awards enforceable under the New York Convention. However, arguably, foreign arbitral tribunals may also seek the assistance of the state court at the place of enforcement if a party does not voluntarily comply with an interim award.

CMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola Scamoni

Via A. Depretis, 86
00184 Rome, Italy

Galleria Passarella, 1
20122 Milan, Italy