Real Estate Brokerage and Foreign Clients: When Litigation Must Be Brought Abroad

An estate agency based on Lake Garda sells a villa to two German nationals. The sale is completed without issue, but the agreed brokerage commission is never paid. The agency brings proceedings in Italy and prevails at first instance; on appeal, however, the defendants raise an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, arguing that the dispute must be decided in Germany, the place of their domicile. The Court of Appeal upholds the objection, and the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), sitting en banc, confirms this approach in order no. 22465/2026.

The case offers a useful opportunity to set out, in general terms, a principle of growing relevance for any professional whose clientele is not confined to the domestic market.

The Principle: Consumer Protection and the Forum of Domicile

EU rules on jurisdiction (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the “Brussels I bis” Regulation) grant enhanced procedural protection to consumers — understood as private parties who contract with a professional outside the scope of their own trade or profession. Where certain conditions are met, the consumer is entitled to be sued only in the Member State of their domicile.

That protection, however, does not apply automatically whenever the client happens to be foreign. It presupposes that the professional directs its activity toward the Member State where the consumer is domiciled. In the absence of that requirement, ordinary jurisdiction rules apply — meaning, for an Italian professional, the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

A Multilingual Website Is Not, By Itself, Sufficient

On this point, the Sezioni Unite refer back to their own earlier ruling (Cass., SU, no. 18092/2024), which had already established that merely publishing a commercial offer on a website accessible in English does not, on its own, constitute sufficient proof of an activity directed toward a particular Member State. English, being the most widely used international language, is not in itself a reliable indicator of a commercial strategy aimed at a specific market.

By contrast, in the case at hand, the Court of Appeal had relied on a range of concrete and converging elements:

• the website’s availability in German, and not merely in English;

• the presence of reviews from foreign customers;

• the listing of an international dialing code;

• the use of real estate portals operating in the German market;

• elements drawn from the company’s corporate purpose and from statements made by its legal representative.

The Supreme Court held that this combination of circumstances was sufficient to demonstrate a commercial strategy specifically directed at the German market, thereby confirming the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

The Criteria Developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union

The parameters applied by domestic case law are grounded in the interpretation of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 provided by the Court of Justice (judgment of 27 April 2023, Case C-104/22). According to that ruling, indicators capable of showing that a trader is directing its activity toward the consumer’s Member State include, among others:

• the international nature of the activity carried out;

• the use of a language or currency other than those customarily used in the trader’s State of establishment;

• the listing of telephone contact details together with an international dialing code;

• expenditure on internet referencing services aimed at reaching consumers in other Member States;

• the use of a top-level domain name different from that of the trader’s State of establishment;

• reference, in commercial communications, to an international clientele.

Taken individually, these indicators are generally not conclusive; taken together, however, they enable a court to reconstruct the trader’s actual commercial strategy.

Practical Implications

This decision confirms a now well-established line of authority, at both the European and national level, and provides guidance of clear practical relevance for professionals — not limited to the real estate sector — who maintain commercial relationships with an international clientele.

In particular, such professionals would be well advised to carefully assess:

• the content and language versions of their website, distinguishing between communications that are merely accessible to an international audience and communications specifically directed at a particular foreign market;

• the commercial promotion methods employed, including any use of portals or referencing services targeted at specific Member States;

• the advisability of including, where permissible, contractual jurisdiction clauses designed to determine in advance the competent forum in the event of a dispute.

As this case illustrates, characterizing an activity as “directed” toward a given Member State may carry significant procedural consequences, affecting the cost, duration, and complexity of any resulting litigation. A case-by-case assessment of one’s commercial presence in foreign markets, carried out with the assistance of legal counsel, is therefore advisable.