Jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors: Analysis of Ordinance No. 19452 of 2024

The recent Ordinance No. 19452 of July 15, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has raised interesting questions regarding the applicable jurisdiction in cases of liability action against private individuals. This ruling clarifies the demarcation lines between ordinary jurisdiction and accounting jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of the public service relationship.

The Legal Context

The Court of Auditors, according to Article 103 of the Constitution, is competent for disputes concerning the liability of public agents. However, case law has established that jurisdiction may vary based on the nature of the relationship between the private party and the public administration (P.A.). In particular, the ordinance in question establishes that the liability action against a private party is assigned to the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors only if there is a service relationship.

The Court's Decision

Liability action against a private party - Ordinary or accounting jurisdiction - Criteria for division - Public service relationship - Relevance - Specific case. The liability action against a private party is assigned to the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors if a service relationship exists, under which the former has been temporarily inserted into the organizational apparatus of the P.A. to carry out an activity or service of public interest, while ordinary jurisdiction is configured in the different case where it is assumed that the damage arises from the non-fulfillment of obligations imposed on the private party, as the contractual counterparty of the P.A. (In this case, the S.C. referred the compensation claim against a company holding a quarry concession and its legal representative to ordinary jurisdiction, regarding the failure to pay the municipal fee and tax on the transport of marbles, based on the assumption that these obligations were to be considered contractual obligations unrelated to a service relationship, as they were aimed at compensating for the failure to exploit public property by the P.A.).

In the analyzed case, the damage was related to the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, which led the Court to conclude that it was a case of ordinary jurisdiction rather than accounting. This distinction is crucial, as it determines not only the competent forum but also the methods of action and the rights of the parties involved.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

  • Clarity on the criteria for division between ordinary and accounting jurisdiction.
  • Importance of the public service relationship in the qualification of jurisdiction.
  • Possibility for private individuals to challenge decisions of the P.A. in ordinary proceedings.

This ruling represents a significant step in defining the boundaries between the two jurisdictions and provides useful guidance for future disputes regarding liability. It invites reflection on the importance of qualifying the relationships between private individuals and public administration, emphasizing that not every obligation automatically entails the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 19452 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation offers a clear and precise view regarding the applicable jurisdiction in cases of liability of private individuals towards the P.A. This ruling not only clarifies legal distinctions but also has a significant practical impact on the legal strategies to be adopted in similar situations. It is essential for legal practitioners to understand these dynamics to better assist their clients in contexts of civil and contractual liability.

Bianucci Law Firm