Public Damage and Jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors: Ruling 16928/2025 on Publicly Funded Training Courses

The management of public resources is a matter of crucial importance for the transparency and efficiency of our Public Administration. Often, for the provision of services or the implementation of projects of collective interest, the Public Administration relies on the collaboration of private entities. But what happens when a private entity, even when operating with contractual instruments typical of private law, manages public funds? The recent Ruling no. 16928 of June 24, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, United Sections, addresses precisely this delicate issue, reaffirming a fundamental principle regarding liability for public damage and the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors. A pronouncement that clarifies the boundaries of accounting liability, even when formally private entities are involved, and which deserves careful analysis to understand its profound implications.

The Context of the Ruling: Private Entities and Public Funds for Training

The specific case on which the United Sections of the Court of Cassation ruled concerned the Sicily Region, which had entrusted a private entity (in this case, the Italian Women's Center) with the management of vocational training courses. These courses were regulated and financed entirely by the Public Administration. The central question was to establish whether, in such a scenario, a service relationship existed between the private entity and the Public Administration, thereby subjecting the entity to the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors for any public damage. The State Attorney General's Office (A.G.) opposed the party P. (L. C. G.), with the Court of Appeal of Catania having previously rejected the request, but the Court of Cassation provided a decisive interpretation.

The Core Principle: The Service Relationship and Accounting Jurisdiction

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling 16928/2025, reaffirmed a consolidated trend, emphasizing that the private nature of the entity or the contractual instrument is not sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors. The heart of the matter lies in the existence of a 'service relationship' with the Public Administration. This relationship is not tied to the legal form of the entity, but to the substance of the activity carried out, namely the management of public money.

The entrustment, by the Sicily Region, to a private entity (in this case, the Italian Women's Center) of the management of vocational training courses regulated and financed by the Public Administration establishes a service relationship with said entity and consequently implies its subjection to the jurisdiction of the Court of Auditors in matters of patrimonial liability for public damage, the private nature of the entity itself or of the contractual instrument (service contract) through which the relationship in question was established and implemented being irrelevant.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that the