Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge in Disputes Between Public Entities: Analysis of Ordinance No. 15911 of 2024

The recent Ordinance No. 15911 of June 6, 2024, provides an important reflection on jurisdiction in the public sector, clearly establishing that disputes between public entities concerning the release of real estate granted in loan must be handled by the ordinary judge. This decision, issued by President D'Ascola Pasquale and rapporteur Giusti Alberto, emphasizes the contractual nature of the loan relationship, detaching it from administrative granting provisions.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The legal issue raised by the ordinance falls within the realm of relations between public entities, which often manage real estate similarly to private parties. Italian case law has repeatedly addressed this issue, highlighting how the loan, regulated by the Civil Code in Article 1803, constitutes a mutual contract, regardless of the nature of the entities involved.

  • Law of March 20, 1865, No. 2248, Article 2
  • Law of December 6, 1971, No. 1034, Article 5
  • Civil Code, Article 1803

The Principle of Ordinary Jurisdiction

Dispute between public entities - Application for the release of real estate granted in loan - Granting relationship - Configurability - Exclusion - Consequences - Jurisdiction of the ordinary judge - Devolution - Nature of the contracting parties - Irrelevance - Case. The dispute concerning the application for the release of a property, belonging to the available assets of a public entity and granted in loan to another public entity, is devolved to the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, because it derives from a mutual contractual relationship, not from an administrative granting provision, and the legal nature of the contracting parties is irrelevant. (Principle affirmed with reference to the request for termination of the loan contract and for the release of the property, proposed by the owner National Agency for Cellulose and Paper against the borrower Ministry of University and Research).

This legal maxim highlights how the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge is relevant in cases of disputes arising from loan contracts. The importance of this principle lies in the fact that the contractual nature of the relationship between the parties should not be confused with the public nature of the entities involved.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 15911 of 2024 represents a significant step in clarifying jurisdiction in matters of loans between public entities. It reaffirms the centrality of the contract and its application even in the context of relations between public entities. The decision to devolve the dispute to the ordinary judge offers greater legal certainty and protection of the rights of the parties involved, ensuring a mutual and contractual approach that reflects the fundamental principles of civil law.

Bianucci Law Firm