Jurisdiction of Courts in Public Water Disputes: Commentary on Order No. 21495 of 2024

The order no. 21495 of July 31, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue regarding jurisdiction in disputes related to the boundaries of riverbeds and banks of public watercourses. In particular, the Court established that jurisdiction belongs to the regional public waters courts when a technical investigation is necessary to determine the public nature of the land in question.

The Specific Case and the Court's Decision

In this case, the appeal concerned a dispute regarding the adverse possession of land coinciding with the bed of a stream. The Court found that, to resolve the issue, a technical investigation was essential to verify whether the land fell within the public water domain or had lost such quality due to the withdrawal of water or a tacit decommissioning. Therefore, it rejected the appeal, confirming the jurisdiction of the regional public waters court.

Determination of the boundaries of the riverbed and banks of a watercourse - Related disputes - Jurisdiction of the regional public waters courts - Discriminating criterion for jurisdiction by subject matter - Case. For the purposes of allocating jurisdiction between the ordinary judge and the regional public waters court, in the case of disputes concerning the limits of the riverbed and/or banks of public watercourses, the discriminating criterion lies in the necessity or otherwise of technical investigations to establish whether the area of land whose public nature is being disputed falls within the river or lake public domain, as only where such an investigation is not required does the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge exist, regardless of whether the issue is prejudicial, merely incidental, or has been raised by way of exception, as only where such an investigation is not required does the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge exist. (In the case concerning an adverse possession judgment regarding land coinciding with the bed of a stream and the related bank areas, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal as the regional public waters court was competent considering the necessity of a technical investigation aimed at establishing whether the area still fell within the public water domain or had lost such quality due to the withdrawal of water from the aforementioned stream or a tacit decommissioning).

The Implications of the Decision

This order highlights a fundamental aspect of Italian jurisprudence regarding the management of water resources and the protection of public domain. The discriminating criterion between the ordinary judge and the regional public waters court is of particular relevance for legal professionals, as it clarifies the circumstances under which technical intervention is necessary to resolve disputes. It is important to note that jurisdiction is not limited only to the merits of the case, but also encompasses the need for technical assessments, making the distinction between the two jurisdictions clear.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 21495 of 2024 represents an important reference for understanding the legal dynamics related to public watercourses and the jurisdiction of courts. It emphasizes the importance of a thorough analysis of technical issues that may influence jurisdiction, highlighting how the correct attribution of jurisdiction can ensure more effective management of disputes related to water resources. Legal professionals and sector operators must pay attention to these indications to better navigate disputes involving the public water domain.

Bianucci Law Firm