The Ordinary Jurisdiction in Enforcement Proceedings: Analysis of Judgment No. 18635 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation No. 18635 of 2024 represents a significant reference point for understanding the Italian legal system, particularly regarding the competent jurisdiction for appeals against enforcement proceedings. This ruling clarifies that appeals arising from judgments of condemnation issued by the Court of Auditors must be handled by the ordinary jurisdiction. This article aims to delve into the details of the ruling, analyzing its legal implications.

The Context of the Ruling

In the case examined, the appeal against the enforcement proceeding was initiated following a judgment by the Court of Auditors, which had condemned an individual for accounting liability. The Court of Cassation established that the competent jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the ordinary judge, as it did not involve an assessment of the prerequisites of public liability, but rather a subjective right to proceed in executivis.

ORDINARY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY In general. The appeal against the enforcement proceeding, even if undertaken based on a judgment of condemnation issued by the Court of Auditors following an accounting liability trial, falls under the ordinary jurisdiction, as it does not involve issues related to the assessment of the prerequisites of public liability, but solely the subjective right to proceed in executivis. (In this case, the Supreme Court excluded that the appeal against an enforcement proceeding, conducted based on a judgment of the Court of Auditors and with the forms of registration under art. 2 of Presidential Decree No. 260 of 1998, could configure the tax or accounting jurisdiction and affirmed that of the ordinary judge).

Implications of the Ruling

This decision has several relevant implications for legal professionals and taxpayers. In particular, it emphasizes:

  • The clear separation between the competences of the ordinary jurisdiction and those of the Court of Auditors.
  • The recognition of the right of the executed party to oppose the enforcement proceeding before the ordinary judge.
  • The necessity for a clear distinction between public liability and subjective rights, which can influence the management of disputes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the order No. 18635 of 2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification of the ordinary jurisdiction in the context of appeals against enforcement proceedings. The ruling not only clarifies the legal landscape but also provides defense tools to the executed parties, thereby reinforcing the rights of taxpayers and legal certainty in our legal system. It is essential for legal practitioners to closely follow these regulatory developments to ensure the correct application of laws and adequate protection of citizens' rights.

Bianucci Law Firm