Ordinary Jurisdiction and Collection of Fines: Commentary on Judgment No. 16031 of 2024

Judgment No. 16031 of June 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue concerning jurisdiction in the context of mandates for the collection of debts arising from administrative sanctions, particularly those provided for by the Highway Code. This ruling is part of a highly topical legal debate, as it clarifies the role of the ordinary judge in such disputes.

Context of the Judgment

The case under review involves a request for an accounting by a territorial entity from a mandated company, which was responsible for collecting debts related to administrative sanctions. The Court established that such a request falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the substantive claim of the action is based on obligations arising from the private mandate relationship.

In general. Regarding mandates for the collection of debts arising from administrative sanctions provided for by the Highway Code, the request for an accounting submitted by the territorial entity to the mandated company falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, as the substantive claim of the action is founded on the obligations stemming from the private mandate relationship. The issuance of a tax injunction for the collection of debts is considered a mere external prerequisite of the relationship brought before the court.

Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Article 263, civil jurisdiction applies to all disputes concerning subjective rights. The Court therefore emphasized that obligations arising from a mandate, such as those in question, are private in nature. Consequently, the ordinary judge is the competent authority to decide on the accounting.

• Clarification of the distinction between ordinary and administrative jurisdiction.
• Recognition of the mandate as a private relationship.
• Relevance of tax injunctions as external prerequisites.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16031 of 2024 represents an important reference point for Italian jurisprudence on jurisdiction. It clarifies that, in situations involving mandates for the collection of debts from administrative sanctions, it is the ordinary judge who must intervene, confirming the separation between private obligations and tax procedures. This jurisprudential trend may have significant repercussions on how disputes concerning administrative sanctions are managed, promoting greater legal certainty and a clear delineation of competencies between different jurisdictions.