Regulation of Competence: Cassation Order No. 15818/2025 and Admissibility Requirements

In civil proceedings, the correct determination of jurisdiction is crucial. The "regulation of competence" resolves such conflicts. Order No. 15818 of June 13, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, clarifies the admissibility prerequisites, providing essential guidance for legal practitioners.

Order 15818/2025: Inadmissibility and the Principle of Finality

The Supreme Court, in the dispute between A. (S. N.) and S. (B. I. D.), declared the regulation of competence proposed against a decision of the Court of Rome inadmissible. The reason: it can only be used against a measure that definitively and unequivocally decides the issue of jurisdiction. Interlocutory rulings are not sufficient; a clear, decisive statement is required.

The regulation of competence, even after the change in the form of the decision introduced by Law No. 69 of 2009, presupposes a decisive measure on jurisdiction which, even if not preceded by the referral of the case for decision and the prior invitation to the parties to clarify their respective full conclusions, including on the merits, contains the affirmation by the judge seized, in unequivocal and incontrovertible terms, of the decision's suitability to definitively resolve the issue of jurisdiction before them.

This principle is fundamental: the substance of the measure is decisive. The judge must express in a crystal-clear manner the intention to have definitively resolved the issue of jurisdiction. Ambiguities render the regulation inadmissible, preventing abuse and ensuring that only final decisions are appealable.

The requirements for an admissible regulation are:

• A decisive measure on jurisdiction.
• An unequivocal and incontrovertible declaration that definitively resolves it.
• The final nature of the decision, regardless of its form (post Law No. 69/2009).

Conclusions: Precision in Service of a Fair Trial

Order No. 15818 of 2025 reinforces the need for precision in decisions on jurisdiction. The clarity required by the Supreme Court guarantees procedural speed and effectiveness, avoiding obstacles and costs for a fair trial. This orientation is consolidated (e.g., No. 2338/2020, No. 14223/2017, United Sections No. 20449/2014).