Order No. 10074 of 2024: Passive Standing in Public Administration Liability

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 10074 of April 15, 2024, raises important considerations regarding passive standing in the context of Public Administration liability. This specific case, concerning damages for the omission or delay in implementing EU directives, highlights the fundamental principles governing the State's representation and its legal responsibility.

Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, A. (D'ALESSIO ANTONIO) sued the Public Administration to obtain compensation for damages related to the delayed implementation of specific European directives concerning the remuneration of resident doctors. The Court ruled that passive standing for such claims lies exclusively with the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

In general. In proceedings where the right to compensation for damages due to the omission or delay in transposing EU directives is asserted (in this case, Directives No. 75/362/EEC, 75/363/EEC, 82/76/EEC, coordinated with Directive 93/16/EEC regarding the remuneration of resident doctors), passive standing lies exclusively with the Presidency of the Council of Ministers; however, if another State body is erroneously sued, in the absence of a timely and proper objection by the State Attorney's Office, pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 260 of 1958, the lack of passive standing cannot be raised ex officio, and the State's representation becomes crystallized in the erroneously sued body. (Applying this principle, the Court quashed the appealed judgment which, in the referral proceedings, having ex officio noted the lack of passive standing of the Ministries of Education, Economy and Finance, and Health, had ordered the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to pay the amounts owed to the doctors whose claims it had deemed founded).

Implications of the Decision

This order clarifies that, in cases of erroneous summoning of State bodies, the lack of passive standing cannot be raised ex officio if there has been no timely objection by the State Attorney's Office. This means that the State's representation remains established with the sued body, even if it is not the correct one. The consequences of this decision are significant for individuals seeking to assert their right to damages in similar contexts.

• Clarity on State representation
• Need for correct identification of competent bodies
• Reinforcement of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers' responsibility

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 10074 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in defining the passive standing of the Public Administration in matters of damages. This judgment not only clarifies the responsibility of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers but also emphasizes the importance of correctly summoning State bodies in legal proceedings. It is crucial for legal professionals and citizens to be aware of these dynamics to ensure the protection of their rights.