Ordinary Jurisdiction and Collection of Debts from Sanctions: Commentary on Judgment No. 16031 of 2024

The judgment No. 16031 of June 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue regarding jurisdiction in the context of the mandate for the collection of debts arising from administrative sanctions, particularly those provided for by the Highway Code. This ruling is part of a highly topical legal debate, as it clarifies the role of the ordinary judge in such disputes.

The Context of the Judgment

The case in question involves the request for an accounting from a territorial entity against a mandated company, which was responsible for the collection of debts related to administrative sanctions. The Court established that such a request falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the substantial claim of the application is based on obligations arising from the private mandate relationship.

In general. In terms of the mandate related to the collection of debts arising from administrative sanctions provided for by the Highway Code, the request for an accounting proposed by the territorial entity against the mandated company falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the substantial claim of the application is grounded in the obligations arising from the private mandate relationship, with the issuance of a tax injunction directed at the collection of debts being a mere external prerequisite of the relationship brought before the court.

Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Article 263, civil jurisdiction applies to all disputes related to subjective rights. The Court has, therefore, emphasized that the obligations arising from a mandate, such as those in question, are of a private nature. Consequently, the ordinary judge is the competent authority to decide on the accounting.

  • Clarification of the distinction between ordinary and administrative jurisdiction.
  • Recognition of the mandate as a private relationship.
  • Relevance of tax injunctions as external prerequisites.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16031 of 2024 represents an important reference point for Italian jurisprudence regarding jurisdiction. It clarifies that, in situations of mandate related to the collection of debts from administrative sanctions, it is the ordinary judge who must intervene, confirming the separation between private obligations and tax procedures. This jurisprudential orientation may have significant repercussions on the management of disputes related to administrative sanctions, promoting greater legal certainty and a clear delimitation of competencies between different jurisdictions.

Bianucci Law Firm