Judicial Representation and Support Administration: Commentary on Ruling No. 17113 of 2024

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 17113 of June 20, 2024, offers important reflections on the theme of judicial representation in the context of individuals who have reached adulthood during a proceeding. In particular, the ruling highlights the principle of the ongoing effect of parental representation, even in the presence of an appointed support administrator.

The Principle of Ongoing Effect of Judicial Representation

According to the Court's ruling, parental judicial representation continues to operate even after the child reaches the age of majority, unless there is a specific loss of procedural capacity. This principle also applies in the case where the adult child is appointed a support administrator. The novelty of this ruling lies in the clear distinction between the appointment of a support administrator and that of interdiction. In fact, while interdiction results in an automatic loss of procedural capacity, the appointment of a support administrator does not automatically imply the cessation of parental representation.

The Declaration of the Support Administrator and the Suspension of the Trial

Another crucial aspect of the ruling concerns the declaration of the appointment by the defender. The Court clarified that such a declaration, if not explicitly aimed at interrupting the process and lacking the necessary formal requirements, does not automatically lead to the suspension of the trial itself. This point is relevant to avoid misinterpretations that could compromise the rights of the parties involved.

In general. The principle of ongoing effect of the judicial representation of the parent of a minor who, during the trial, reaches the age of majority operates even if a support administrator is appointed for the adult child, as the loss of procedural capacity of the party cannot automatically derive from that appointment, unlike what happens in the case of interdiction; it follows that the declaration of the appointment of the support administrator by the defender with the concluding brief does not automatically determine the suspension of the trial, unless it is aimed at achieving such an effect and accompanied by the necessary formal requirements. (In this case, applying the stated principle, the Supreme Court annulled with referral the contested ruling that had declared the lack of representation in court of a disabled person who had meanwhile reached adulthood, considering the parental representation to have ceased due to the appointment of the grandmother as a support administrator, without even evaluating the suitability for interrupting the process of the declaration of the event by the defender appointed by the father).

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 17113 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of disabled individuals, clarifying the dynamics of judicial representation even in complex situations. It is essential that legal practitioners understand these principles to ensure the correct application of the regulations and the safeguarding of the rights of the parties involved. The Court's decision not only provides legal certainty but also invites us to reflect on how institutions can better support vulnerable individuals in their access to justice.

Bianucci Law Firm