Commentary on Order No. 20107 of 2024: Inadmissibility and Limits of Accounting Jurisdiction

The recent Order No. 20107 of July 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on accounting jurisdiction and the methods for appealing decisions of the Court of Auditors. In particular, the ruling addresses the inadmissibility of appeals to the Court of Cassation, highlighting how the failure to appeal a decision rejecting the merits can preclude further possibilities of challenge.

Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, the appellant C. (G. A.) faced a decision from the Court of Auditors that had rejected his appeal for two fundamental reasons: on the one hand, inadmissibility due to lack of jurisdiction, and on the other, rejection on the merits due to lack of grounds. The Court established that, in the absence of an appeal against the latter decision, the appeal to the Court of Cassation cannot be accepted.

(APPEAL FOR) - SPECIAL JURISDICTIONS (APPEALABILITY) - COURT OF AUDITORS. In general. Where the appellate accounting judge rejects the appeal based on two concurrent grounds for decision - one of inadmissibility, due to the inapplicability of any of the hypotheses referred to in art. 172 of Legislative Decree no. 174 of 2016 (code of accounting justice) or of damage to the public treasury or of an account judgment, and the other of rejection on the merits, due to the lack of grounds for the claims made - the omission to appeal the latter decision leads to the inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation pursuant to art. 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution, as a lack of interest in its proposal cannot be configured due to the prior dismissal of the power to judge by the Court of Auditors, it being a violation of the internal limits of jurisdiction, external to the scope of the legality review referred to in the aforementioned art. 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution.

Legal Implications

This ruling highlights a crucial aspect of Italian accounting justice: the necessity of appealing all decisions that may affect the final outcome of the proceedings. Indeed, the principle of procedural economy and the right of access to justice require careful evaluation of the decisions intended to be challenged. If a judgment on the merits is omitted, this automatically leads to the inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, as established by art. 111 of the Constitution.

• Relevance of the double ratio decidendi in the Court of Auditors' decision.
• Obligation to appeal all decisions to preserve the right of appeal.
• Consequences of the lack of potestas iudicandi and its influence on the admissibility of the appeal.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 20107 of 2024 represents an important step in understanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors and the methods for appealing its decisions. It is essential for individuals involved in accounting procedures to fully comprehend the implications of various decisions and the importance of adequate defense in the process. The ruling clarifies that the failure to appeal a decision rejecting the merits can result in the impossibility of appealing to the Court of Cassation, thereby limiting the possibilities for the protection of rights.