Civil Jurisdiction: Cassation Order 17032/2025 on the Limits of Jurisdiction Regulation

In the complex landscape of Italian civil procedural law, the issue of the judge's jurisdiction plays a fundamental role, ensuring that each dispute is handled by the most appropriate judicial body. The Court of Cassation, through its constant work of interpretation and clarification, regularly intervenes to provide valuable guidance, essential for the correct application of procedural rules. A significant example is Order No. 17032 of 25/06/2025, which addresses in detail the admissibility conditions for the regulation of jurisdiction, a crucial tool for resolving conflicts on this matter.

Regulation of Jurisdiction: a Key Tool in Civil Proceedings

The regulation of jurisdiction, governed by Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, represents the means by which parties can challenge the judge's decision on their jurisdiction, or the absence of such a decision. It is a guarantee mechanism aimed at ensuring that the proceedings take place before the judge correctly vested with the dispute. Its importance has grown with the introduction of Law No. 69 of 2009, which modified the form of the decision on jurisdiction, providing for the adoption of an order rather than a judgment.

This modification, while streamlining procedures, has raised questions about the nature and appealability of judicial measures in this area. Order 17032/2025, issued in the context of a case between S. (T. A.) and C. (F. M.), decided at first instance by the Court of Viterbo, offers fundamental clarification on these aspects, declaring the regulation of jurisdiction inadmissible in specific circumstances.

The Cassation Decision: When the Order on Jurisdiction is Inadmissible

The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. B. M. and with Dr. G. G. as rapporteur, has reiterated an already established principle, but one whose practical implications are always worth emphasizing. The headnote of Order 17032/2025 states:

Even following the amendment introduced by Law no. 69 of 2009 regarding the form of the decision on jurisdiction (to be adopted by order rather than judgment), the measure issued by the judge seized (in this case, a single judge) which, by rejecting the corresponding objection, asserts its own jurisdiction and orders the continuation of the proceedings before it, is not subject to appeal pursuant to art. 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the regulation is preceded by the referral of the case for decision and the prior invitation to the parties to state their respective full conclusions, including those on the merits, unless that judge, by proceeding and ruling in this way, has asserted – in terms of absolute and objective unequivocalness and incontrovertibility – the suitability of their determination to definitively resolve the aforementioned issue before them.

This passage is crucial. In summary, the Court of Cassation establishes that, even after the 2009 reform which transformed the decision on jurisdiction from a judgment to an order, a measure by the judge (in this specific case, a single judge) that rejects an objection of lack of jurisdiction and orders the continuation of the proceedings cannot be immediately challenged with the regulation of jurisdiction provided for by art. 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This occurs unless specific procedural conditions have been met or unless the judge themselves has expressly declared their decision to be final.

The conditions that render the regulation of jurisdiction inadmissible are:

• The regulation was not preceded by the referral of the case for decision;
• It was not preceded by the prior invitation to the parties to state their respective full conclusions, including those on the merits.

In other words, if the judge simply states