Liability of Public Administration: Comments on Cass. Civ., Section III, Order No. 5984/2023
The ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 5984/2023 addressed a highly relevant issue in the field of civil liability of Public Administration, particularly regarding the conduct of agents from the Revenue Agency. This case, which originated from a lawsuit filed by C.C. against the Agency, highlights the complexities related to the burden of proof and the serious fault of tax agents.
The Context of the Case
The appellant, C.C., had been involved in a tax inspection that led to erroneous assessments by agents of the Revenue Agency. The errors made resulted in the initiation of two criminal proceedings, which were subsequently dismissed. C.C. then sought compensation for the damages suffered due to the consequences of these errors.
The Tribunal of Tivoli had initially rejected the compensation request, arguing that the liability of the agents had not been proven. However, the Court of Appeal of Rome later accepted C.C.'s appeal, acknowledging the culpable responsibility of the agents and condemning the Agency to compensate for the damages.
Analysis of the Ruling
The Court of Cassation reiterated that the activity of public administration must be carried out in compliance with the law and subjective rights. This principle is fundamental to ensuring legality and good administration.
The decision of the Cassation focuses on two main grounds of appeal presented by the Revenue Agency. The first concerned the alleged violation of Articles 1223 and 2043 of the Civil Code, relating to liability for damage. The tax agents argued that their action was a duty, as they were obliged to report tax violations.
- The Court clarified that the error of the agents, although it may fall within the scope of their duties, does not exempt them from liability if this error has caused damage to the taxpayer.
- The second ground concerned the causal link between the error and the damage suffered. The Court established that, had the agents acted with greater diligence, the taxpayer could have avoided an unjust process.
Implications for Public Administration
This ruling raises important questions about the responsibilities of Public Administration and the burden of proof in similar cases. It represents a significant precedent for citizens who intend to assert their rights against administrative errors.
In an ever-evolving legal context, it is essential that public agents act with the utmost diligence and professionalism, in line with the principles of legality and impartiality enshrined in the Constitution.
Conclusions
The Cassation, with its ruling, reaffirmed the necessity of strict oversight over the actions of Public Administration, emphasizing the possibility of compensation for citizens harmed by administrative errors. The liability of tax agents, as outlined in this order, represents an important step towards greater protection of taxpayers' rights.
