Jurisdiction: Commentary on Ordinance No. 31242 of 2024 from the Supreme Court
The recent Ordinance No. 31242 from the Supreme Court, issued on December 6, 2024, offers important insights regarding the allocation of jurisdiction between ordinary judges and administrative judges, particularly in cases of labor disputes within public entities. The central issue revolves around the responsibility of hierarchical superiors and the applicability of regulations concerning mobbing.
The Case at Hand
The appeal was filed by @Sa.Pa., a manager at AGCOM, who reported her superior B.B. for non-pecuniary damages resulting from acts of mobbing. In the first instance, the Court of Rome partly accepted the compensation request, while the Court of Appeal of Rome, in reforming the ruling, declared the lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, arguing that such disputes should be handled by the administrative judge.
Jurisdiction is determined based on the claim, and it is necessary to consider the substantial petitum, that is, the intrinsic nature of the position brought before the court.
The Court's Rationale
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, establishing that jurisdiction belonged to the ordinary judge. It is interesting to note how the Court emphasized that the responsibility of the hierarchical superior cannot be considered merely contractual, but rather extracontractual, based on the principle of neminem laedere. In other words, B.B.'s conduct is not solely attributable to his role within the entity, but must also be assessed in relation to the acts of mobbing perpetrated against @Sa.Pa.
The Court highlighted that, although the employment relationship may constitute a context, mobbing actions and persecutory behaviors must be treated as stand-alone offenses, not automatically falling under administrative jurisdiction.
Practical and Jurisprudential Implications
This ordinance has significant implications for public employees facing mobbing situations. In particular, it clarifies that:
- The responsibility of hierarchical superiors for acts of mobbing can be pursued in civil court, even if they belong to public entities.
- The principle of neminem laedere is crucial in evaluating the unlawful conduct of a superior towards a subordinate.
- The jurisdiction of the ordinary judge is applicable in cases of extracontractual responsibility, excluding administrative jurisdiction.
These points offer a feasible path for employees who experience harassment or persecutory behaviors in the workplace, allowing them to seek justice in a more favorable context.
Conclusions
In conclusion, Ordinance No. 31242 from the Supreme Court represents an important step in defining the limits of jurisdiction concerning labor disputes involving public entities. It consolidates the idea that the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge can extend to unlawful behaviors perpetrated by hierarchical superiors, opening the door to greater protection for workers. It is essential for legal professionals to pay attention to these jurisprudential developments to adequately assist their clients.
