Analysis of Judgment No. 575 of 2025: Territorial Jurisdiction and Responsibility of Judges

The civil liability of judges is a topic of great relevance in the Italian legal landscape. Order No. 575 of 09/01/2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important step in defining the rules of territorial jurisdiction concerning wrongful or negligent conduct attributable to judges. In this article, we will analyze the content of the judgment, highlighting its implications and the legal principles that support it.

Regulatory Context and Case Law

The issue addressed in the judgment concerns the territorial jurisdiction for civil liability proceedings brought against the State, pursuant to Law No. 117 of 1988. It is important to note that when multiple judges, both of merit and legitimacy, are involved in wrongful or negligent acts, the case must be considered unitary. This implies that territorial jurisdiction must be determined according to the criterion established by Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), as referenced by Article 4 of the same law.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Wrongful or negligent conduct attributable to judges of a judicial office and the Court of Cassation - Territorial jurisdiction - Forum under Article 11 c.p.p. - Wrongful or negligent conduct attributable to judges of the Court of Cassation - Exclusion - Forum under Article 25 c.p.c. - Case law. In civil liability proceedings brought against the State, based on Law No. 117 of 1988, when multiple judges, of merit and legitimacy, cooperate in wrongful or negligent acts even different within the same judicial matter, the case is necessarily unitary and territorial jurisdiction must be attributed to all according to the criterion of Article 11 c.p.p., referenced by Article 4, paragraph 1, of the same law; however, if such proceedings only concern the conduct, acts, or measures of judges of the Court of Cassation, the relocation of jurisdiction provided by Article 11 c.p.p. does not apply and, therefore, territorial jurisdiction is attributed pursuant to Article 25 c.p.c. following the rule of forum commissi delicti, so that it is always up to the Court of Rome, as the forum of the place where the obligation arose. (In application of this principle, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal challenging the contested judgment for having recognized the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome to decide a case concerning alleged wrongful and negligent conduct of judges of the same Court, consisting in issuing a decision flawed by contradiction with a previous judgment that had already become final).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several practical implications for legal professionals and citizens. In particular, the following points are highlighted:

  • The necessity to consider the case unitary when multiple judges are involved in wrongful or negligent conduct.
  • The exclusion of the application of Article 11 c.p.p. for the conduct of judges of the Court of Cassation, attributing jurisdiction to the forum of Rome according to Article 25 c.p.c.
  • The clarity in distinguishing between the responsibilities that may arise from the cooperation of multiple judges in the same matter.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 575 of 2025 represents an important clarification regarding territorial jurisdiction in civil liability proceedings against judges. It reinforces the principle of the necessary unity of the case and offers valuable indications on how to address situations involving multiple judges. Professionals and citizens must take these indications into account to effectively navigate the complex system of Italian justice.

Bianucci Law Firm