Appeal of Judgments on Jurisdiction and Court Costs: Cassation Court Ordinance No. 13483 of 2025

Civil procedural law, with its inherent complexity, is the foundation upon which the protection of rights is built. Every judicial ruling, particularly those affecting the judge's jurisdiction and the allocation of court costs, requires scrupulous analysis. The crucial clarification provided by the Supreme Court of Cassation with Ordinance No. 13483 of May 20, 2025, fits into this scenario. This decision, while technical, offers indispensable guidance on how to appeal "mixed" judgments, which rule on both jurisdiction and costs, preventing uncertainties and potential procedural errors. In-depth analysis is mandatory for all legal professionals.

The Case Underlying the Ruling: An Exemplary Factual Scenario

To grasp the full scope of Ordinance No. 13483/2025, it is essential to understand the specific factual scenario that generated it. In the specific case, a Tribunal, following the acceptance of an exception of territorial incompetence, instead of merely striking the case from the roll, had erroneously declined its jurisdiction and, at the same time, ruled on court costs. This ruling on costs had been appealed before the Court of Appeal of Naples, which had declared the appeal inadmissible, arguing that the appellant could not appeal the first-instance judgment solely on the ruling regarding costs.

Against this decision of the Court of Appeal, the parties, S. (G. G.) and C. (A. Q.), filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Cassation Court, presided over by Judge M. B. and with Judge A. M. as Rapporteur, therefore quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, providing a decisive interpretation of the procedural rules.

The Cassation Court's Principle of Law: Two Distinct Paths for Appeal

The core of Ordinance No. 13483/2025 lies in the principle of law reaffirmed by the Court. This principle establishes a clear distinction between the methods of appealing the ruling on jurisdiction and those concerning the ruling on costs. The maxim is peremptory and offers clear direction to legal professionals:

A judgment that has ruled on jurisdiction and costs can only be appealed through a request for regulation concerning the issue of jurisdiction and through ordinary means concerning the ruling on costs, independently and separately from the request for regulation.

This means that a judgment deciding on both the judge's jurisdiction and court costs cannot be appealed with a single act. The ruling on jurisdiction must be contested exclusively through a "request for regulation of jurisdiction," as provided for by Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a specific instrument for issues of jurisdiction. Conversely, the ruling on court costs must be appealed through "ordinary means," i.e., appeal or Cassation appeal, depending on the level and nature of the ruling. It is crucial to highlight that these two paths are "independent and separate," implying that the appeal of costs is not subordinate to the request for regulation of jurisdiction, nor vice versa. The Court also referred to its consistent case law (No. 1039 of 1996 Rv. 495797-01).

Legal References and Practical Implications

The consequences of this ruling are significant for legal practice. Lawyers must be aware of the need to activate distinct appeal routes to contest both aspects of a "mixed" judgment. Failure to observe this distinction, as highlighted in the case of the Court of Appeal of Naples, can lead to the inadmissibility of the appeal and the definitive consolidation of a potentially erroneous decision.

The main legal references supporting this principle are:

• Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Outlines the regulation of jurisdiction, specifying the conditions and procedures for raising issues of jurisdiction.
• Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Deals with the award of costs, establishing that the judge, with the judgment concluding the proceedings, orders the losing party to reimburse the costs. The ruling on costs is intrinsically autonomous, although accessory to the main decision.

The Cassation Court's decision, quashing and remanding the Court of Appeal's judgment, reaffirms the party's right to contest the ruling on court costs, even when the jurisdiction issue has already been resolved or accepted through separate instruments.

Conclusions: A Beacon in Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court of Cassation's Ordinance No. 13483 of 2025 stands as a benchmark in Italian jurisprudence on appeals. It clarifies, with authority, that the procedural protection of parties requires a differentiated approach when a judgment rules on both jurisdiction and costs. The distinction between the regulation of jurisdiction and ordinary means of appeal for costs is not a mere formality but a fundamental guarantee for the correct application of the law and the full protection of the parties' positions. For legal professionals, this ruling serves as an indispensable guide, emphasizing the importance of rigorous knowledge of procedures to prevent defects and inadmissibility, ensuring that every aspect of a judicial decision can be examined and, if necessary, corrected in accordance with the principles of a fair trial.