Comment on the Order No. 9190 of 2024 concerning jurisdictional conflict

The recent order no. 9190 of April 5, 2024, from the Court of Cassation provides significant insights into the interpretation of the regulations concerning jurisdictional conflicts among judges, particularly regarding Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this instance, the Court declared inadmissible a jurisdictional regulation proposed ex officio, highlighting the importance of the precise identification of subject matter jurisdiction.

The context of the ruling

The controversy underlying the order concerns compensation for damages caused by the rupture of a municipal water pipeline due to maintenance defects. The Regional Court of Public Waters of Naples had raised a conflict of jurisdiction but failed to demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction of the judge a quo or another judge. The Court, recalling the established principle, deemed that such a lack rendered the jurisdictional regulation inadmissible.

Legal principles applied in the ruling

EX OFFICIO REGULATION) Conflict of jurisdiction under Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Preconditions - Identification of subject matter jurisdiction of the judge a quo or another judge - Necessity - Case related to the TRAP. The jurisdictional regulation proposed ex officio under Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inadmissible if the judge ad quem, who disagrees with the assessment of the existence of their own subject matter jurisdiction, does not identify the existence of subject matter jurisdiction of the judge a quo or another judge. (In application of the principle, the S.C. declared inadmissible the jurisdictional regulation proposed ex officio, in relation to a case for damages resulting from the rupture of a municipal water pipeline due to maintenance defects by the TRAP, which had denied its subject matter jurisdiction and affirmed that of the ordinary judge, without indicating the latter as competent for the subject matter, noting that the case should return to this judge solely due to the absence of subject matter jurisdiction of the judge who raised the conflict, and thus, based on the value jurisdiction of the judge indicated as competent).

The principle established by the Court highlights the importance of a clear and precise identification of subject matter jurisdiction in case of conflict. This is crucial not only to ensure a correct course of the proceedings but also to avoid situations of legal uncertainty. In fact, the absence of a clearly identifiable jurisdiction leads to an inevitable inadmissibility of the jurisdictional regulation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 9190 of 2024 represents an important guide for lawyers facing jurisdictional conflict issues. It emphasizes how essential it is for the judge not only to assess their own jurisdiction but also to identify any potential jurisdictions of other judges. Clarity in defining subject matter jurisdiction proves to be a fundamental factor for the proper functioning of justice. This case will undoubtedly serve as a reference for future similar disputes and for the interpretation of the norms by judges.

Bianucci Law Firm