Municipalities' Procedural Representation: The Court of Cassation Clarifies Managers' Powers with Order No. 17679/2025

The management of litigation by local authorities is a matter of fundamental importance for the efficiency of Public Administration and for the protection of citizens' interests. Traditionally, the power to represent the Municipality in court has been almost exclusively associated with the figure of the Mayor. However, legislative evolution and the need for greater organizational flexibility have raised questions about the possibility of delegating this function to other senior officials.

It is in this context that the recent Order of the Court of Cassation No. 17679 of June 30, 2025, fits in, offering essential clarifications on the limits and conditions under which the procedural representation of Municipalities can be assigned to managers or senior officials of the bureaucratic structure. A ruling that not only confirms the statutory autonomy of the entities but also highlights its practical implications for the management of public litigation.

The Mayor's Role and the Evolution of Legal Representation

Article 50 of Legislative Decree No. 267 of 2000, commonly known as the Consolidated Act on Local Authorities (TUEL), establishes that the Mayor is the body responsible for the legal representation of the Municipality. This provision has historically rooted the idea of exclusive ownership by the mayor, making any deviation subject to careful judicial review.

However, the same TUEL, in other parts (such as Articles 97, 107, and 108), recognizes a central role for managers in administrative and technical management, granting them autonomous powers of expenditure and organization. The question that has arisen several times is whether this managerial autonomy could extend to representation in court, especially with a view to efficiency and specialization of functions.

Case law has gradually outlined a path that, while confirming the Mayor's primary role, has opened the way for possible delegations, provided that these were expressly foreseen and regulated by the entity's internal normative instruments.

The Court of Cassation's Clarity: Analysis of the Headnote

Order No. 17679/2025 of the Court of Cassation intervenes precisely to clarify this crucial point. The headnote, which encapsulates the legal principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, is particularly illuminating:

In the institutional and constitutional system of local authorities, the Municipality's statute – and also the Municipality's regulation, but only if the statute contains an express reference, on the matter, to regulatory provisions – may legitimately entrust the representation in court to managers, within the scope of their respective areas of competence, as an expression of their own managerial power, or to senior officials of the Municipality's bureaucratic-administrative structure. It is understood that, where a specific statutory provision (or, under the conditions mentioned above, a regulatory provision) does not exist, the mayor retains exclusive ownership of the power of procedural representation of the Municipality, pursuant to Article 50 of Legislative Decree No. 267 of 2000. In particular, if the statute (or, within the limits already indicated, the regulation) entrusts the representation in court regarding the entire litigation to the head of the legal office, this person, if possessing the necessary qualifications, may appear without a power of attorney or assign the task to an in-house legal professional or an external lawyer (except for legally defined cases where the local authority may appear without legal counsel) and, if authorized to practice before higher courts, may also personally conduct defense activities in cassation proceedings.

This passage from the Court of Cassation is of fundamental importance because it crystallizes a principle: procedural representation is not necessarily and exclusively the prerogative of the Mayor. The Court recognizes the full legitimacy of assigning this power to managers, or other senior officials, provided that this possibility is expressly contemplated by the municipal statute or by a regulation that the statute itself refers to. It is a clear valorization of the organizational autonomy of local authorities.

The ruling emphasizes a crucial aspect: the assignment of this power to managers falls within the scope of their