Commentary on Judgment No. 18559 of 2024: Excess of Jurisdictional Power and Merits Assessment

The recent ordinance No. 18559 of July 8, 2024, from the Council of State provides significant insights on the theme of excess of jurisdictional power. In particular, the judgment clarifies how the administrative judge must conduct a legality review of administrative measures without exceeding the limits of merits, a fundamental principle to ensure the balance between the administration's attributions and the role of the judge.

The Regulatory Context

The case examined concerns the appeal of a negative opinion regarding a regularization of building discrepancies. The United Sections of the Council of State reiterated that any excess of jurisdictional power, under Article 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution, occurs only when the judge replaces the administration in the merits assessment. The judgment emphasizes that the judge's review must be limited to the legality of the contested measure, respecting the regulatory framework and the rural character of the site in question.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Excess of jurisdictional power, in the form of encroachment into the merits sphere, under Article 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution, is configurably only when the inquiry conducted by the administrative judge, exceeding the limits of the legality review of the contested measure, becomes instrumental to a direct and concrete assessment of the appropriateness and convenience of the act, or when the final decision, while respecting the annulment formula, expresses the will of the judging body to replace that of the administration, leading the judge to undertake a merits review with a judgment having the substantive content and enforceability characteristic of the substituted measure, without saving the further measures of the administrative authority. (In this case, relating to the appeal of a negative opinion on the regularization of building discrepancies, the United Sections excluded that the Council of State had encroached upon the sphere of attributions of the administrative authority, as the judge limited itself to confirming the legality of the contested administrative act, taking into account the regulatory framework and the rural character of the site, without replacing the Public Administration in merits assessments regarding the compatibility of the work with archaeological and landscape protection needs).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment provides important guidance for legal practitioners and public administrations, clarifying that the administrative judge cannot replace the administration in the merits assessment. This implies that decisions regarding building regularizations must be well-motivated and cannot be challenged on the basis of merely opportunistic or subjective considerations.

  • Respect for review limits: the judge must refrain from making assessments that go beyond legality.
  • Importance of motivation: administrative decisions must be well-motivated to avoid appeals.
  • Balance between powers: respecting the attributions between administration and jurisdiction is fundamental for the proper functioning of the rule of law.
Bianucci Law Firm