Commentary on Order No. 20036 of 2024: Ordinary Jurisdiction and Damages Compensation

The recent order no. 20036 of July 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on jurisdiction concerning damages compensation, particularly in the context of bankruptcy procedures and preventive agreements. The central issue concerns the legal position of the parties involved and their right to request compensation from the Revenue Agency.

The Legal Question

In this order, the Court established that "the claim for damages proposed against the Revenue Agency, due to its negative vote on the proposal for a compromised treatment provided in a preventive agreement, falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the expression of the vote cannot even abstractly be classified as an administrative act, so that the subjective legal position asserted by the plaintiff does not interfere with the exercise of the authoritative activity of the public administration."

In general. The claim for damages proposed against the Revenue Agency, due to its negative vote on the proposal for a compromised treatment provided in a preventive agreement, falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the expression of the vote cannot even abstractly be classified as an administrative act, so that the subjective legal position asserted by the plaintiff does not interfere with the exercise of the authoritative activity of the public administration.

Analysis of the Ruling

The Court, therefore, outlines a clear boundary between ordinary jurisdiction and administrative jurisdiction. This aspect is crucial, as it defines the type of court that should handle the dispute. Ordinary jurisdiction is competent when it comes to subjective rights, as in the case at hand, where the negative vote of the Revenue Agency had direct repercussions on the rights of creditors.

  • It clarifies the separation between administrative acts and the subjective rights of individuals.
  • It addresses the responsibilities of the public administration.
  • It cites previous case law to support its position.

Conclusions

This order represents a significant step forward in understanding jurisdiction concerning damages compensation. It highlights the importance of a correct interpretation of the regulations, particularly those contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and bankruptcy law, which protect the rights of parties involved in bankruptcy procedures. Legal practitioners should carefully consider the implications of this ruling, which strengthens ordinary jurisdiction in contexts where public administration exercises discretionary powers.

Bianucci Law Firm