Public Administration Liability: Commentary on Cass. civ., Section III, Order, no. 5984/2023

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 5984/2023 addressed a highly relevant issue in the field of civil liability of Public Administration, particularly concerning the conduct of Revenue Agency officials. This case, which originated from a lawsuit filed by C.C. against the Agency, highlights the complexities related to the burden of proof and gross negligence of tax officials.

Case Context

The appellant, C.C., was involved in a tax inspection that led to incorrect assessments by Revenue Agency officials. The errors committed resulted in the initiation of two criminal proceedings, which were ultimately dismissed. C.C. therefore sought compensation for the damages suffered due to the consequences of these errors.

The Court of Tivoli initially rejected the compensation claim, arguing that the officials' liability had not been proven. However, the Court of Appeal of Rome subsequently upheld C.C.'s appeal, recognizing the officials' culpable liability and ordering the Agency to pay damages.

Judgment Analysis

The Court of Cassation reiterated that the activities of public administration must be carried out in compliance with the law and subjective rights. This principle is fundamental to ensuring legality and good administration.

The Cassation's decision focuses on two main grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue Agency. The first concerned the alleged violation of Articles 1223 and 2043 of the Civil Code, relating to liability for damages. The tax officials argued that their actions were a required act, as they were obliged to report tax violations.

• The Court clarified that the officials' error, even if it falls within the scope of their duties, does not exempt them from liability if that error caused damage to the taxpayer.
• The second ground concerned the causal link between the error and the damage suffered. The Court established that if the officials had acted with greater diligence, the taxpayer could have avoided an unjust proceeding.

Implications for Public Administration

This judgment raises important questions regarding the liabilities of Public Administration and the burden of proof in similar cases. It represents a significant precedent for citizens seeking to assert their rights against administrative errors.

In an ever-evolving legal landscape, it is crucial for public officials to act with the utmost diligence and professionalism, in line with the principles of legality and impartiality enshrined in the Constitution.

Conclusions

The Court of Cassation, with its ruling, has reaffirmed the need for rigorous oversight of the operations of Public Administration, emphasizing the possibility of compensation for citizens harmed by administrative errors. The liability of tax officials, as outlined in this order, represents an important step towards greater protection of taxpayers' rights.