Commentary on Ordinance No. 18653 of 2024: Jurisdiction in Public Employment

The recent Ordinance No. 18653 of 08/07/2024 provides important clarifications regarding jurisdiction in disputes related to contractual public employment. In particular, it focuses on competitive procedures and the division of jurisdiction between the ordinary judge and the administrative judge, a crucial issue for legal professionals and public employment workers.

The Regulatory Context

The central issue addressed in the ruling concerns the application of Article 63 of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001. This article establishes that all disputes related to the employment relationship in privatized public employment, including hiring and the assignment of managerial positions, fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge. However, administrative jurisdiction is reserved, in a residual manner, solely for competitive procedures instrumental to the establishment of the relationship with the Public Administration (P.A.).

Contractual public employment - Disputes regarding competitive procedures - Division of jurisdiction - Criteria - Cases. In the context of privatized public employment, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001, all disputes related to every phase of the employment relationship, including those concerning hiring and the assignment of managerial positions, are attributed to the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, while the residual reserve to administrative jurisdiction, contained in paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Article 63, concerns exclusively competitive procedures, instrumental to the establishment of the relationship with the P.A. (In this case, applying the stated principle, the Supreme Court declared the jurisdiction of the administrative judge, as it concerned a procedure aimed at the potential assignment of positions, characterized by the issuance of a call for applications, comparative evaluation of candidates, and final compilation of a merit ranking).

Implications of the Ruling

The analyzed Ordinance confirms the importance of distinguishing between the different phases of the employment relationship in privatized public employment. The Court reiterated that disputes related to hiring and the management of employment relations are within the competence of the ordinary judge, while competitive procedures, such as the issuance of calls for applications and candidate evaluations, fall under administrative jurisdiction.

This principle is of fundamental importance to ensure that disputes are handled by the most appropriate jurisdiction, avoiding conflicts of competence and ensuring a more efficient management of legal resources. The ruling aligns with previous jurisprudence, including the United Sections of 2017, which addressed similar issues.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 18653 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining jurisdiction in public employment matters. The clarity provided by the Court regarding the division of competencies between the ordinary and administrative judges not only facilitates the resolution of disputes but also offers valuable guidance for legal professionals and public sector workers. It is essential to stay updated on these legal developments to ensure proper protection of workers' rights and efficient management of disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm