Commentary on Judgment Order No. 18722 of 2024: Excess of Jurisdictional Power and Invasion of the Legislative Sphere

The Judgment No. 18722 of July 9, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point in Italian jurisprudence regarding special jurisdictions, particularly concerning the Court of Auditors. Analyzing the specific case, it is possible to grasp the challenges that arise when the boundaries between normative interpretation and normative production are exceeded.

The Context of the Judgment

In this order, the Court declared inadmissible the appeal presented by V. R. against the Attorney General of the Court of Auditors. The central issue concerned the accusation of excess of jurisdictional power by the accounting judge, accused of violating the sphere reserved for the legislator. According to the Court, excess of jurisdictional power occurs when the judge applies a norm created by himself, rather than merely interpreting existing laws.

Excess of jurisdictional power due to invasion of the sphere reserved for the legislator, which can be denounced with the appeal for cassation pursuant to Article 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution, occurs when the special judge applies a norm created by himself, thus exercising a normative production activity that does not belong to him, not in relation to the activity of interpretation - even if extensive or analogical - of a legal provision, given that any hermeneutic errors, even if leading to a radical distortion of the meaning of the norm, do not affect the existence or external limits of jurisdictional power, but only the legitimacy of its exercise.

Normative Interpretation vs. Normative Production

The Court clarified that any interpretation errors, even if significant, do not constitute a violation of the legislative sphere. This is fundamental to understanding the limits of jurisdictional power. In fact, extensive or analogical interpretation should not be confused with the adoption of new norms, which solely belongs to the legislator. The distinction between these two activities is crucial to ensure respect for the principles of separation of powers.

  • The Court of Auditors cannot create norms, only interpret them.
  • Any interpretative errors should not compromise the legitimacy of the exercise of jurisdictional power.
  • The appeal for cassation is a tool to report excess of jurisdictional power.

Conclusions

Order No. 18722 of 2024 offers an important reflection on the function of the Court of Auditors and the limits of its jurisdictional intervention. The judgment emphasizes how the correct interpretation of norms is essential to preserve the balance between the powers of the state. Legal practitioners and citizens must be aware that the interpretation of laws must remain an activity reserved for the judge, while the creation of new norms is the exclusive task of the legislator. This principle is fundamental for the protection of individual rights and freedoms and for the proper functioning of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm