Commentary on Order No. 18653 of 2024: Jurisdiction in Public Employment

The recent Order No. 18653 of 07/08/2024 offers important clarifications regarding jurisdiction in disputes related to contracted public employment. In particular, it focuses on competitive selection procedures and the division of jurisdiction between ordinary and administrative courts, a crucial topic for legal professionals and public sector employees.

Regulatory Context

The central issue addressed in the ruling concerns the application of Article 63 of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001. This article establishes that all disputes concerning the employment relationship in the privatized public sector, including hirings and the conferral of managerial positions, fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge. However, administrative jurisdiction is reserved, as a residual matter, solely for competitive selection procedures instrumental to the establishment of the relationship with the Public Administration (PA).

Contracted Public Employment - Disputes concerning competitive selection procedures - Division of jurisdiction - Criteria - Case law. In the matter of privatized public employment, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001, all disputes concerning every phase of the employment relationship are attributed to the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, including those concerning hiring and the conferral of managerial positions, while the residual reservation to administrative jurisdiction, contained in paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Article 63, exclusively concerns competitive selection procedures, instrumental to the establishment of the relationship with the PA. (In this case, applying the stated principle, the Supreme Court declared the jurisdiction of the administrative judge, as it concerned a procedure aimed at the potential conferral of positions, characterized by the issuance of a public notice, comparative evaluation of candidates, and the final compilation of a merit-based ranking).

Implications of the Ruling

The Order under review confirms the importance of distinguishing between the different phases of the employment relationship in the privatized public sector. The Court reiterated that disputes relating to hiring and the management of employment relationships are within the competence of the ordinary judge, while competitive selection procedures, such as the issuance of public notices and the evaluation of candidates, fall under administrative jurisdiction.

This principle is of fundamental importance to ensure that disputes are handled by the most appropriate jurisdiction, avoiding conflicts of competence and ensuring a more efficient use of legal resources. The ruling aligns with previous case law, including that of the United Sections of 2017, which addressed similar issues.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18653 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining jurisdiction in public employment matters. The clarity provided by the Court regarding the division of powers between ordinary and administrative judges not only facilitates the resolution of disputes but also offers valuable guidance for legal professionals and public sector employees. It is essential to stay updated on these legal developments to ensure the correct protection of workers' rights and efficient dispute management.