Commentary on Order No. 16784 of 17/06/2024: Reflections on Jurisdiction and Case Management

The recent Order No. 16784 of 17/06/2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the nature of case management acts and their impact on jurisdiction. In particular, the decision clarifies how such acts cannot be considered mere administration, but rather an expression of jurisdictional competence that renders them unchallengeable.

The Nature of Case Management Acts

According to the Court, presidential acts of case management, such as those issued by the section president of a Court of Appeal, do not have a purely administrative nature. Instead, they are instrumental to the exercise of jurisdictional function. This implies that such acts cannot be subject to discretionary assessments by other judges, but are reserved for the judicial order itself.

In general. Presidential acts of case management (in this case, issued by the section president of a Court of Appeal for the purpose of reassigning pending cases from a judge transferred to another office, also modifying their chronological order) do not have a strictly administrative nature, as they do not constitute the implementation of a discretionary function focused on weighing the primary public interest against other competing private interests. Instead, as they pertain to the organization of jurisdiction, they are an expression of a competence reserved for the judicial order, with the consequence that they are unchallengeable by any other judge. The protection of a party's right to a decision on the case within a reasonable time is entrusted to the preventive or compensatory remedies provided by Law No. 89 of 2001, or to forms of intra-procedural dialogue with the investigating judge, or, at the organizational level, to the possibility of disciplinary reporting to the Prosecutor General of the Court of Cassation or the Minister of Justice (while, however, the aforementioned organizational measures remain assessable for the conferral or confirmation of managerial or semi-managerial positions and in the context of evaluating a magistrate's professional performance).

Legal Consequences and Remedies for Parties

This decision highlights how the protection of the right to a decision within a reasonable time is not guaranteed through the appeal of such administrative acts, but through other forms of remedy. Among these are:

• Preventive or compensatory remedies according to Law No. 89 of 2001;
• Intra-procedural dialogue with the investigating judge;
• Possibility of disciplinary reporting to the Prosecutor General of the Court of Cassation or the Minister of Justice.

This underscores the importance of proper organization of jurisdiction and the need to maintain the separation of powers, so that the right to justice is not compromised.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 16784 of 2024 offers a clear interpretation of the nature of case management acts, reiterating their unchallengeable status and their instrumental function to the exercise of jurisdiction. It is crucial for the parties involved to understand the remedies available to them, so that they can effectively protect their rights within the context of a complex and constantly evolving judicial system.