Cass. civ. n. 27190/2024: Territorial Jurisdiction in Support Administration

The recent ordinance of the Court of Cassation, no. 27190 of October 21, 2024, offers significant insights into the issue of territorial jurisdiction in support administration. The case in question involves B.B., an individual suffering from schizophrenia, and their support administrator, A.A., who had to address the issue of the court's jurisdiction following the beneficiary's transfer to a new facility.

The Case in Question

The Court of Brescia had initially ordered support administration for B.B., but subsequently, following the transfer to a facility located in the province of Cuneo, declared its territorial incompetence, transferring the case to the Court of Cuneo. However, A.A. contested this decision, arguing that the transfer was temporary and that B.B. still had significant ties to their registered residence in Brescia.

Jurisprudence establishes that, in the absence of proof of the permanent nature of the hospitalization, territorial jurisdiction lies with the guardianship judge of the person's habitual residence.

The Public Prosecutor's Office supported the appeal, stating that jurisdiction should remain with the Court of Brescia, as B.B.'s placement was not voluntary and the non-transitory nature of the hospitalization had not been proven.

Relevant Legal Principles

The Court of Cassation recalled important legal principles for determining territorial jurisdiction:

• The coincidence between actual residence and domicile with the registered residence of the person under administration.
• The need to prove not only the transfer of habitual residence but also the voluntariness of this move.
• In case of hospitalization in a care home, jurisdiction lies with the judge of the place where the person has their habitual residence, unless proven otherwise.

In this case, the Court highlighted that the contested measure had not adequately considered the temporary nature of B.B.'s hospitalization and their health conditions, which did not allow them to express a conscious will regarding their residence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 27190/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification regarding territorial jurisdiction in support administration. It emphasizes the need to consider not only the beneficiary's geographical location but also their personal conditions and the nature of the hospitalization. This decision may influence future similar cases, highlighting the importance of careful and contextualized evaluation by the courts.