Commentary on Ruling Order No. 18722 of 2024: Exceeding Jurisdictional Power and Invasion of the Legislative Sphere

Ruling No. 18722 of July 9, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important benchmark in Italian jurisprudence concerning special jurisdictions, particularly regarding the Court of Auditors. By analyzing the specific case, one can grasp the challenges that emerge when the boundaries between normative interpretation and normative production are crossed.

The Context of the Ruling

In this order, the Court declared the appeal filed by V. R. against the Attorney General of the Court of Auditors inadmissible. The central issue concerned the accusation of exceeding jurisdictional power by the accounting judge, who was accused of violating the sphere reserved for the legislator. According to the Court, exceeding jurisdictional power occurs when the judge applies a rule created by themselves, rather than limiting themselves to interpreting existing laws.

Exceeding jurisdictional power by invading the sphere reserved for the legislator, actionable through an appeal for cassation pursuant to Article 111, paragraph 8, of the Constitution, occurs when the special judge applies a rule created by themselves, thereby exercising a normative production activity that does not belong to them, rather than in relation to the activity of interpretation – even if extensive or analogical – of a legal provision, since any interpretative errors, even if involving a radical distortion of the meaning of the rule, do not affect the existence or the external limits of jurisdictional power, but only the legitimacy of its exercise.

Normative Interpretation vs. Normative Production

The Court clarified that any interpretative errors, even if significant, do not constitute a violation of the legislative sphere. This is fundamental to understanding the limits of jurisdictional power. Indeed, extensive or analogical interpretation must not be confused with the adoption of new rules, which is exclusively the responsibility of the legislator. The distinction between these two activities is crucial to ensure respect for the principles of separation of powers.

• The Court of Auditors cannot create rules, only interpret them.
• Any interpretative errors must not compromise the legitimacy of the exercise of jurisdictional power.
• An appeal for cassation is a tool to denounce the exceeding of jurisdictional power.

Conclusions

Order No. 18722 of 2024 offers an important reflection on the function of the Court of Auditors and the limits of its jurisdictional intervention. The ruling emphasizes how the correct interpretation of rules is essential to preserve the balance between the powers of the state. Legal professionals and citizens must be aware that the interpretation of laws must remain an activity reserved for the judge, while the creation of new rules is the exclusive task of the legislator. This principle is fundamental for the protection of individual rights and freedoms and for the proper functioning of justice.