Commentary on Ordinance No. 16784 of 06/17/2024: Reflections on Jurisdiction and Administration of the Process

The recent Ordinance No. 16784 of 06/17/2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on the nature of acts of administration of the process and their impact on jurisdiction. In particular, the decision clarifies how such acts cannot be considered mere administration, but rather an expression of a jurisdictional competence that determines their unchallengeability.

The Nature of Acts of Administration of the Process

According to the Court, presidential acts of administration of the process, such as those issued by the section president of a Court of Appeal, do not possess a purely administrative nature. They are, instead, instrumental to the exercise of jurisdictional function. This implies that such acts cannot be subject to discretionary evaluations by other judges, but are reserved for the judicial order itself.

Generally. Presidential acts of administration of the process (in this case, issued by the section president of a Court of Appeal for the purpose of redistributing pending cases on the role of a magistrate transferred to another office, also reshaping their chronological sequence) do not have a purely administrative nature, not constituting implementation of a discretionary function focused on weighing the primary public interest against other competing private interests, but, as they pertain to the organization of jurisdiction, they are an expression of a competence reserved for the judicial order, with the consequence that they are unchallengeable by any other judge, leaving the protection of the party's right to a decision in a reasonable time to preventive or compensatory remedies under Law No. 89 of 2001 or to forms of intra-procedural communication with the instructing judge or, at the regulatory level, to the possibility of disciplinary reporting to the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation or to the Minister of Justice (while remaining, however, the evaluability of the aforementioned organizational measures for the purposes of assigning or confirming managerial or semi-managerial positions and in the assessment of the magistrate's professionalism).

Legal Consequences and Remedies for the Parties

This decision highlights how the protection of the right to a decision within a reasonable time is not guaranteed through the challenge of such administrative acts, but through other forms of remedy. Among these, we find:

  • Preventive or compensatory remedies under Law No. 89 of 2001;
  • Intra-procedural communications with the instructing judge;
  • Possibility of disciplinary reporting to the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation or to the Minister of Justice.

This underscores the importance of proper organization of jurisdiction and the need to maintain the separation of powers, so that the right to justice is not compromised.

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 16784 of 2024 provides a clear interpretation of the nature of acts of administration of the process, reiterating the unchallengeability of such acts and their instrumental function in the exercise of jurisdiction. It is essential that the parties involved understand the remedies available to them, so they can effectively protect their rights within the context of a complex and evolving judicial system.

Bianucci Law Firm