Interpretation of Administrative Acts: Analysis of Judgment No. 15367 of 2024

Judgment No. 15367 of June 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important reference in the field of interpretation of non-normative administrative acts. In a complex legal context, this ruling clarifies how such acts should be interpreted, using criteria similar to those applied to contracts. But what are the practical implications of this judgment for victims of catastrophic events and for public administrations?

The Context of the Judgment

The dispute concerns an appeal filed by R. (O.) against R. (B.), regarding the settlement of compensations for flood victims, ordered by decrees of the Prime Minister's office. The Court rejected the appeal, arguing that the interpretation of the administrative acts in question was adequately motivated and not sufficiently contested by the parties. This decision highlights the importance of a correct assessment of the negotiating intent of the public administration.

Principles of Interpretation and Reviewability

Non-normative administrative act - Interpretation - Criteria - Reviewability in cassation - Limits - Case law. The interpretation of non-normative administrative acts is subject to the rules established for contracts, as far as compatible, resulting in an ascertainment of the negotiating intent of the public administration reserved for the judge of merit, for which mere abstract reference to Articles 1362 and following of the Civil Code is not sufficient for review in legitimacy, but it is necessary to specify the hermeneutic criteria that are concretely claimed to be violated and the precise indication of the points of motivation that deviate from them, within the limits provided by Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, in cases of violation of law, or for the omitted examination of a decisive fact that is the subject of discussion between the parties pursuant to the amended Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. (In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal against the merit decision concerning the settlement of compensations in favor of flood victims, as provided by decrees of the Prime Minister's office or the specially appointed extraordinary commissioner, considering that a plausible interpretation of these administrative acts had been provided and not adequately contested).

This maxim emphasizes that the interpretation of non-normative acts must follow well-defined rules and that the burden of proving any interpretative errors lies with the party challenging the act. It is therefore essential for the parties to specify precisely which principles of interpretation have been violated, avoiding vague challenges.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 15367 of 2024 provides clear indications on the limits and criteria for interpreting non-normative administrative acts. It reinforces the idea that the interpretation of such acts is a process reserved for the judge of merit, who must rely on solid and specific arguments. This not only ensures a fairer application of the rules but also protects the victims of natural disasters, ensuring that decisions are motivated and adequately justified.

Bianucci Law Firm