TRIESTE – With an order dated 27 December 2025, the Court of Ravenna has affirmed Italian jurisdiction over a vessel that, at the time the arrest application was filed, was not yet within Italian territorial waters.
The news was reported by lawyer Federico Tassinari of law firm Zunarelli. It is a decision that could have significant implications for maritime logistics and port operations, because it recognises the possibility of obtaining interim protective relief even where the vessel only enters Italy after the proceedings have been commenced.
The case arose in the context of interim proceedings for a conservatory arrest of a ship, brought under the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952. At the time the petition was lodged and the interim order was issued, however, the vessel was still outside Italian territorial waters. On that basis, the defence raised an objection to the Italian court’s jurisdiction.
According to that argument, since the vessel was not in Italy when the proceedings were initiated, the Court would have lacked the power to issue any interim measure. The Court of Ravenna rejected the objection, holding that Italian jurisdiction nevertheless existed. The reasoning relied on a supervening fact occurring during the proceedings: the vessel’s entry into Italy and subsequent berthing in the Port of Ravenna, which took place after the interim proceedings had been instituted.
The judges referred to Italy’s Private International Law Act (Law No. 218 of 1995), placing particular emphasis on Article 8. That provision introduces an exception to the general principle of “perpetuatio iurisdictionis”, under which jurisdiction is determined by reference to the time the claim is brought. Under Law No. 218, instead, Italian jurisdiction may also exist where the facts or legal rules establishing it arise later, during the proceedings.
The Court also referred to Article 10 of the same law, which allows Italian jurisdiction to be affirmed where the measure is to be enforced in Italy, or where the Italian court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute. In the case at hand, the vessel’s arrival in the Port of Ravenna made it concretely possible to enforce the arrest on Italian territory.
Although there are currently no fully consistent Supreme Court precedents, the decision has clear practical relevance for operators, shipowners, creditors and maritime professionals. It endorses the idea that jurisdiction can “crystallise” even after proceedings have begun, when the vessel enters Italy after the application is filed and the interim order is intended to be enforced in Italy. In practical terms, this opens the way for an applicant to obtain anticipatory interim relief, provided it can demonstrate not only that the order will be enforceable in Italy, but also the vessel’s effective entry into Italian waters or an Italian port.
It remains to be seen whether this approach will be confirmed by further decisions, creating a stable line of interpretation, or whether it will be overturned by a stricter reading anchored to the principle that jurisdiction must already exist at the time the claim is filed. This is far from a purely academic issue and is likely to affect legal and operational strategies in maritime traffic and in the management of disputes involving vessels bound for Italian ports.
