In a recent decision, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) addressed the issue of jurisdiction in disputes arising from international sales of goods, confirming an approach that has increasingly consolidated in recent Italian case law: the “Ex Works” (EXW) delivery term may be decisive in identifying the place of delivery of the goods and, therefore, the court having jurisdiction over the dispute.
The case concerned an international sale between an Italian seller and a U.S. buyer involving the supply of furniture elements intended for hotel premises in the United States. After the Italian seller obtained a payment order for the price of the goods, the buyer challenged the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, arguing that delivery should be deemed to have taken place at the final destination of the goods. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the contractual clause “Ex Works – seller’s premises” identified Italy as the place of delivery. Consequently, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), jurisdiction belonged to the Italian courts.
The ruling is consistent with the interpretative framework already developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which the place of delivery in international sales of goods must primarily be determined on the basis of the contract, taking into account contractual terms capable of clearly identifying that place, including delivery terms (such as Incoterms ®). Italian case law, however, had long been characterized by inconsistent decisions on this issue. A turning point came with the decision of the Italian Supreme Court’s Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite) No. 11346 of 2023, which clarified that the EXW clause does not merely regulate the allocation of risks and transport obligations but may also determine the place of delivery relevant for jurisdictional purposes.
The 2026 decision confirms this approach and contributes to greater predictability in cross-border commercial disputes.
From a practical perspective, the ruling offers several useful lessons for companies engaged in international trade. Delivery terms (such as Incoterms®)should not be regarded merely as logistical clauses governing transport and risk allocation, as they may also have procedural implications. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the wording used to identify the place of delivery. Generic indications such as “EXW Italy” may be sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of that country. To reduce potential uncertainty, it is therefore advisable to specify the exact place of delivery and consider including an explicit forum selection or arbitration clause. Consistency in commercial documentation, including purchase orders, order confirmations and invoices, may also play a role in determining the agreed place of delivery.
The decision confirms that, in international sales transactions, the contractual determination of the place of delivery plays a key role not only from a commercial perspective but also in the management of potential disputes. Careful drafting of contractual clauses can therefore be an essential tool for reducing cross-border litigation risks or, at the very least, for ensuring greater certainty as to the court before which any dispute will be decided.
