Cass. Civ., Ord. n. 18222/2024: Reflections on Public Administration Liability

The recent order of the Court of Cassation (n. 18222/2024) offers important food for thought on the liability of the Public Administration (PA) regarding the occupation of private land. The case examined involves A.A., owner of land on which the Municipality built roads and services, and raises crucial issues concerning the burden of proof and the methods of challenging the lawfulness of administrative acts.

The Context of the Judgment

In the proceedings, A.A. challenged the construction of public works on his land, arguing that the Municipality had proceeded without an adequate public utility decree. Initially, the Court dismissed the compensation claim, holding that the land fell within an already restricted urban planning area. However, on appeal, A.A. amended his claim, challenging the lawfulness of the public utility declaration.

• The Court of Appeal deemed the first ground of appeal unfounded, considering the amendment of the claim inadmissible.
• The central issue was whether the PA had acted lawfully in carrying out urban development works on land already burdened by rights of way.

The reclassification of a claim is permissible, provided that the constitutive facts coincide with those alleged in the introductory pleading.

The Importance of the Burden of Proof

The Court of Cassation upheld the first ground of appeal, highlighting the need for a reclassification of the claim. In fact, although the appellant had initially contested the absence of a public utility declaration, he subsequently questioned the lawfulness of such administrative act, remaining within the context of the main alleged fact. This point is crucial, as the Court emphasized that the unlawful occupation of property by the PA can give rise to compensatory liability, both in cases of appropriation and usurpation.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 18222/2024 represents an important clarification on the liability of the PA in the context of private land occupations and on the burden of proof resting on those who challenge the lawfulness of administrative acts. The recognition of the possibility of reclassifying the claim, while maintaining the focus on the same substantive matter, offers greater protection to the rights of owners, highlighting the importance of due process. It will be interesting to observe how this decision will influence future disputes regarding occupation and damages by the PA.