Public Administration Liability and Nuisances: Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling no. 14209 of 2023

The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, no. 14209 of 2023, has reignited the debate on Public Administration (PA) liability concerning intolerable noise nuisances. Specifically, the case involved Mr. and Mrs. A.A. and B.B., who sued the Municipality for disturbances caused by nighttime noise, raising crucial questions about jurisdiction and the PA's duty to ensure public tranquility.

The Case and the Court's Decision

Mr. and Mrs. A.A. and B.B. had requested the Municipality's intervention to stop noise nuisances originating from patrons of commercial establishments, arguing that these disturbances violated their right to health and quiet. The Court of Appeal of Brescia, however, had rejected their claims, holding that the PA was not obligated to intervene without a specific legal provision mandating active control over public spaces.

The Court of Cassation established that the PA's liability must also be assessed based on the principle of neminem laedere (do no harm), with particular reference to the protection of citizens' fundamental rights.

The Court of Cassation, upholding the couple's appeal, emphasized that the PA must adhere to technical rules and standards of diligence in managing public assets. This means that, in the face of intolerable nuisances, citizens have the right to request not only compensation for damages but also the adoption of preventive measures.

Implications of the Ruling

The Court's decision has significant implications for Italian jurisprudence. In particular, it clarifies that:

• The jurisdiction of the ordinary judge also extends to cases of PA liability for intolerable nuisances.
• The PA is required to adopt concrete measures to ensure public tranquility, in line with current regulations, such as Law no. 447 of 1995 on noise pollution.
• The constitutional principle of protecting health (Art. 32 of the Constitution) and property (Art. 42 of the Constitution) must be guaranteed, even in relation to the actions of the PA.

This ruling represents a significant step towards greater PA accountability and recognition of citizens' rights, especially in contexts of noise disturbance. The Court clarified that it is not sufficient to refer to a general duty to ensure public tranquility; concrete and measurable action is necessary.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Supreme Court ruling no. 14209 of 2023 marks an important benchmark for citizens' rights against intolerable nuisances. It underscores that the PA's liability cannot be evaded and that citizens have the right to expect effective measures to protect their health and environment. This case could set an important precedent for future similar disputes, reinforcing the principle that the PA must act proactively to ensure the quality of citizens' lives.