Cass. Civ., Ord. n. 18222/2024: Reflections on the Liability of Public Administration
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation (n. 18222/2024) provides important insights into the liability of Public Administration (P.A.) regarding the occupation of private lands. The case examined involves A.A., the owner of lands on which the Municipality has built roads and services, raising crucial questions about the burden of proof and the methods of contesting the legitimacy of administrative acts.
The Context of the Judgment
In the proceedings, A.A. contested the construction of public works on his lands, arguing that the Municipality had proceeded without an adequate public utility provision. Initially, the Court had rejected the compensation request, considering that the lands fell within an already constrained urban planning sector. However, on appeal, A.A. changed his request, contesting the legitimacy of the declaration of public utility.
- The Court of Appeal deemed the first ground of appeal unfounded, considering that the modification of the request was inadmissible.
- The central issue was whether the P.A. had acted legitimately in carrying out urbanization works on lands already burdened by easements.
The requalification of the request is permitted, as long as the constitutive facts coincide with those alleged in the introductory act.
The Importance of the Burden of Proof
The Court of Cassation upheld the first ground of appeal, highlighting the necessity for a requalification of the request. Indeed, although the appellant had initially contested the lack of a declaration of public utility, he subsequently questioned the legitimacy of such an administrative act, remaining within the context of the main fact alleged. This point is crucial, as the Court emphasized that the unlawful occupation of a good by the P.A. can lead to liability for damages, both in the case of appropriative and usurpative occupation.
Conclusions
Ruling n. 18222/2024 represents an important clarification on the liability of the P.A. in the context of occupations of private lands and on the burden of proof for those contesting the legitimacy of administrative acts. The acknowledgment of the possibility to requalify the request, while maintaining focus on the same substantive issue, offers greater protection to the rights of owners, highlighting the importance of a fair trial. It will be interesting to observe how this decision will influence future disputes concerning occupation and compensation claims by the P.A.
