Interpretation of Administrative Acts: Analysis of Judgment No. 15367 of 2024

Judgment No. 15367 of June 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important reference point in the interpretation of non-regulatory administrative acts. In a complex legal context, this ruling clarifies how such acts should be interpreted, resorting to criteria similar to those used for contracts. But what are the practical implications of this judgment for victims of calamitous events and for public administrations?

Context of the Judgment

The dispute concerns an appeal filed by R. (O.) against R. (B.), relating to the liquidation of compensation for flood victims, ordered by decrees of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The Court rejected the appeal, holding that the interpretation of the administrative acts in question had been adequately reasoned and not sufficiently contested by the parties. This decision highlights the importance of a correct assessment of the public administration's contractual intent.

Principles of Interpretation and Reviewability

Non-regulatory administrative act - Interpretation - Criteria - Reviewability by the Court of Cassation - Limits - Case facts. The interpretation of non-regulatory administrative acts is subject to the rules governing contracts, where compatible, as it involves ascertaining the public administration's contractual intent, which is reserved for the lower court judge. For its review on grounds of legality, an abstract reference to Articles 1362 et seq. of the Civil Code is insufficient; rather, it requires specification of the interpretive canons allegedly violated in concreto and precise indication of the points in the reasoning that deviate therefrom, within the limits provided by Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in cases of violation of law, or for the omission of examination of a decisive fact subject to discussion between the parties pursuant to the amended Article 360, paragraph 1, no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal against the lower court's decision concerning the liquidation of compensation for flood victims, as provided for by decrees of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers or of the specially appointed extraordinary commissioner, finding that a plausible interpretation of said administrative acts had been provided and had not been adequately challenged).

This summary emphasizes that the interpretation of non-regulatory acts must follow well-defined rules and that the burden of proving any interpretive errors rests with the party challenging the act. It is therefore essential for the parties to precisely indicate which interpretive principles have been violated, avoiding generic challenges.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 15367 of 2024 provides clear guidance on the limits and criteria for interpreting non-regulatory administrative acts. It reinforces the idea that the interpretation of such acts is a process reserved for the lower court judge, who must rely on solid and specific arguments. This not only ensures a fairer application of the rules but also protects victims of natural disasters by ensuring that decisions are reasoned and adequately justified.