Ordinary Jurisdiction in Forced Execution: Analysis of Judgment No. 18635 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation No. 18635 of 2024 represents a significant benchmark for understanding the Italian legal system, particularly regarding the competent jurisdiction in opposition to forced execution. This judgment, in fact, clarifies that oppositions arising from judgments issued by the Court of Auditors must be handled by the ordinary jurisdiction. This article aims to delve into the details of the judgment, analyzing its legal implications.

Context of the Judgment

In the case examined, the opposition to forced execution proceedings was initiated following a judgment by the Court of Auditors, which had found a subject liable for accounting responsibility. The Court of Cassation established that the competent jurisdiction for the opposition lies with the ordinary judge, as it did not involve an assessment of the prerequisites for state liability, but rather a subjective right to proceed with enforcement.

ORDINARY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY Generally. The judgment of opposition to forced execution, even if undertaken based on a conviction issued by the Court of Auditors following an accounting liability proceeding, falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, because it does not involve aspects of cognition related to the assessment of the prerequisites for state liability, but solely the subjective right to proceed with enforcement. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court excluded that tax or accounting jurisdiction could be established for the opposition to a forced execution, conducted based on a judgment of the Court of Auditors and through the procedure of registration of the debt ex art. 2 Presidential Decree No. 260 of 1998, and affirmed the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge).

Implications of the Judgment

This decision has several relevant implications for legal professionals and taxpayers. In particular, it highlights:

• The clear separation between the competencies of the ordinary jurisdiction and those of the Court of Auditors.
• The recognition of the right of the party subject to enforcement to oppose forced execution before the ordinary judge.
• The need for a clear distinction between state liability and subjective rights, which can influence the management of litigation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18635 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification of the ordinary jurisdiction within the scope of oppositions to forced execution. The judgment not only clarifies the legal landscape but also offers defense tools to parties subject to enforcement, thereby reinforcing taxpayers' rights and legal certainty within our legal system. It is crucial for legal operators to closely follow these regulatory developments to ensure the correct application of laws and adequate protection of citizens' rights.