Jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors: Analysis of Order No. 19452 of 2024

The recent Order No. 19452 of July 15, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised interesting questions regarding the applicable jurisdiction in cases of liability actions against private individuals. This ruling clarifies the demarcation lines between ordinary and accounting jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of the public service relationship.

Legal Context

The Court of Auditors, according to Article 103 of the Constitution, has jurisdiction over disputes concerning the liability of public officials. However, jurisprudence has established that jurisdiction may vary based on the nature of the relationship between the private party and the public administration (PA). In particular, the order under review establishes that a liability action against a private party falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors only if a service relationship exists.

The Court's Decision

Action for liability against a private party - Ordinary or accounting jurisdiction - Allocation criteria - Public service relationship - Relevance - Factual circumstances. An action for liability against a private party is assigned to the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors where a service relationship exists, by virtue of which the former has been temporarily integrated into the organizational structure of the PA for the performance of an activity or service of public interest. Conversely, ordinary jurisdiction applies in the different case where it is alleged that the damage arises from the breach of obligations incumbent upon the private party, as a contractual counterparty of the PA (In this case, the SC attributed to ordinary jurisdiction the claim for damages against a company holding a quarry concession and its legal representative, in relation to the failure to pay municipal fees and marble transport tax, on the grounds that the latter were qualified as contractual obligations unrelated to a service relationship, as they were intended to compensate for the PA's failure to exploit public assets).

In the analyzed case, the damage was linked to the breach of contractual obligations, which led the Court to conclude that it was a matter of ordinary jurisdiction rather than accounting jurisdiction. This distinction is crucial, as it determines not only the competent court but also the procedural methods and the rights of the parties involved.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

• Clarity on the allocation criteria between ordinary and accounting jurisdiction.
• Importance of the public service relationship in qualifying jurisdiction.
• Possibility for private parties to challenge PA decisions in ordinary courts.

This ruling represents a significant step in defining the boundaries between the two jurisdictions and provides useful guidance for future disputes concerning liability. It prompts reflection on the importance of qualifying the relationships between private parties and public administration, emphasizing that not every obligation automatically entails the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 19452 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation offers a clear and precise view regarding the applicable jurisdiction in cases of liability of private parties towards the PA. This ruling not only clarifies legal distinctions but also has a significant practical impact on the legal strategies to be adopted in similar situations. It is essential for legal professionals to understand these dynamics to better assist their clients in contexts of civil and contractual liability.