Municipal Expenses and the Relationship Between Private Individuals and Administrators: Commentary on Ordinance No. 19892 of 2024

The recent intervention of the Court of Cassation with Ordinance No. 19892 of 2024 represents an important reflection on off-budget municipal expenses and the role of public administrators. This ruling clarifies the ways in which the obligatory relationship between the private individual and the administrator or official arises, establishing useful criteria for the correct interpretation of current regulations.

The Regulatory Context

The central issue concerns the interpretation of Article 23, paragraph 4, of Decree Law No. 66 of 1989, converted with amendments into Law No. 144 of 1989. This provision establishes that the obligatory relationship regarding compensation arises directly with the administrator or official who has allowed the performance. It is important to emphasize that it is not necessary for the activity of "allowing" to involve an active initiative on the part of the official; it is sufficient that they do not express dissent and provide their services in the presence of a valid obligation from the local authority.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Off-budget municipal expenses - Obligatory relationship between private individuals and administrators or officials - Preconditions - De facto execution allowed by the administrator or official - Notion of "allowing" - Hypothesis. Regarding off-budget expenses of municipalities (and, more generally, local authorities), for the purposes of the interpretation of the provision of Article 23, paragraph 4, of Decree Law No. 66 of 1989 (converted with amendments in Law No. 144 of 1989), which establishes the emergence of the obligatory relationship concerning compensation directly with the administrator or official who has allowed the performance, it must be excluded that the activity of "allowing" the performance must consist of a role of initiative or decisive intervention by the official, as it is sufficient that they omit to express their dissent and instead provide their services in the presence of a valid and binding obligation of the local authority. (Applying this principle, the Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the territorial court that had stopped at the acknowledgment of the formal data represented by the signature of the professional service contract by a different official than the one under judgment, without assessing the role played by the same in the phase preceding the conclusion of the contract and in its execution).

Practical Implications

This ordinance has several practical implications for the actions of local authorities and for private individuals who engage with them. Among these, we can highlight:

  • The need for greater attention from administrators in expressing their dissent.
  • The importance of the role played by each official throughout the entire process, not just at the moment of signing the contract.
  • The possibility for private individuals to claim credits even in the absence of formal consent, if they demonstrate the execution of useful services for the local authority.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 19892 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the boundaries of the relationship between private individuals and public administration, clarifying how the "allowing" by an official can have a substantial impact on the obligations undertaken by the local authority. This ruling invites reflection on the importance of transparency and accountability in the management of public expenses, promoting greater awareness on the part of both administrators and citizens.

Bianucci Law Firm