Cass. civ. n. 27190/2024: Territorial Jurisdiction in Support Administration

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, n. 27190 of October 21, 2024, offers significant insights on the topic of territorial jurisdiction in support administration. The case in question involves B.B., an individual suffering from schizophrenia, and his support administrator, A.A., who found himself facing the issue of the court's jurisdiction following the transfer of the beneficiary to a new facility.

The Case at Hand

The Court of Brescia had initially ordered the support administration for B.B., but subsequently, following the transfer to a facility located in the province of Cuneo, declared its territorial incompetence, transferring the case to the Court of Cuneo. However, A.A. contested this decision, arguing that the transfer was temporary and that B.B. still had significant ties to his registered residence in Brescia.

Case law establishes that, in the absence of evidence of the permanent nature of the hospitalization, the jurisdiction belongs to the guardian judge of the place of habitual residence of the person.

The Public Prosecutor supported the acceptance of the appeal, asserting that jurisdiction should remain with the Court of Brescia, as B.B.'s placement was not voluntary and the non-transitory nature of the hospitalization had not been demonstrated.

Relevant Legal Principles

The Supreme Court referred to important legal principles for determining territorial jurisdiction:

• The coincidence between actual residence and domicile with the registered residence of the person under support administration.
• The necessity to prove not only the transfer of the habitual residence but also the voluntariness of such relocation.
• In the case of hospitalization in a care home, jurisdiction belongs to the judge of the place where the person has their habitual residence, unless proven otherwise.

In this case, the Court highlighted that the challenged ruling did not adequately consider the temporary nature of B.B.'s hospitalization and his health conditions, which did not allow him to express a conscious will regarding his residence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ruling n. 27190/2024 of the Supreme Court represents an important clarification regarding territorial jurisdiction in support administration. It emphasizes the need to consider not only the geographical position of the beneficiary but also their personal conditions and the nature of the hospitalization. This decision may influence future similar cases, highlighting the importance of careful and contextualized assessment by the courts.