Commentary on Court Order No. 9190 of 2024 on Conflict of Jurisdiction

The recent Court of Cassation Order No. 9190 of April 5, 2024, offers significant insights into the interpretation of legislation concerning conflicts of jurisdiction between judges, particularly in relation to Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this instance, the Court declared inadmissible a sua sponte motion for the regulation of jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of precisely identifying jurisdiction by subject matter.

Context of the Ruling

The dispute underlying the order concerns damages caused by the rupture of a municipal water pipeline due to maintenance defects. The Regional Court for Public Waters of Naples had raised a conflict of jurisdiction but failed to demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction by subject matter for the referring judge or another judge. The Court, recalling the established principle, deemed this omission to render the motion for the regulation of jurisdiction inadmissible.

Legal Principles Applied in the Ruling

(SUA SPONTE MOTION) Conflict of Jurisdiction under Art. 45 c.p.c. - Prerequisites - Identification of Jurisdiction by Subject Matter for the Referring Judge or Another Judge - Necessity - Case concerning the TRAP. A sua sponte motion for the regulation of jurisdiction under Art. 45 c.p.c. is inadmissible if the appellate judge, who disagrees with the assessment of the existence of their jurisdiction by subject matter, does not identify the existence of jurisdiction by subject matter for the referring judge or another judge. (In application of this principle, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the sua sponte motion for the regulation of jurisdiction, in relation to a claim for damages arising from the rupture of a municipal water pipeline due to its maintenance defects by the TRAP, which had denied its jurisdiction by subject matter and affirmed that of the ordinary judge, without indicating the latter as having jurisdiction by subject matter, noting that the case should have returned to such judge solely due to the absence of jurisdiction by subject matter for the judge who raised the conflict, and therefore, based on jurisdiction by value for the judge indicated as competent).

The principle established by the Court emphasizes the importance of a clear and precise identification of jurisdiction by subject matter in cases of conflict. This is crucial not only to ensure the proper course of proceedings but also to avoid situations of legal uncertainty. Indeed, the absence of clearly identifiable jurisdiction leads to the inevitable inadmissibility of the motion for the regulation of jurisdiction.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 9190 of 2024 serves as an important guide for legal professionals facing issues of conflict of jurisdiction. It underscores the essential duty of a judge not only to assess their own jurisdiction but also to identify the potential jurisdiction of other judges. Clarity in defining jurisdiction by subject matter thus proves to be a fundamental factor for the proper functioning of justice. This case will undoubtedly serve as a reference for future similar disputes and for the interpretation of norms by judges.