Jurisdiction over Land Reclamation Consortia: The United Sections of the Court of Cassation with Order No. 17489/2025 Define the Boundaries

The issue of jurisdiction competent for public economic entities has been the subject of an important clarification by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation. With Order No. 17489 of June 29, 2025, light has been shed on the verification of the final accounts of the directors of land reclamation consortia, establishing clear boundaries between ordinary and accounting jurisdiction.

Land Reclamation Consortia: Between Public and Entrepreneurial

Land reclamation consortia are public economic entities with entrepreneurial activities. This peculiarity has generated uncertainty regarding the competence to judge their directors for financial management. Traditionally, the Court of Auditors deals with public damage, but does its jurisdiction extend to every public entity? The ruling clarifies this crucial point.

The Ruling of the United Sections: Ordinary Judge Competent

Order No. 17489/2025, presided over by P. D'A. and drafted by G. M. S., denied accounting jurisdiction. The main reason is the absence of "handling" of funds directly attributable to a public administration in the strict sense. The United Sections reiterated the need for a specific legislative provision to attribute such jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 103 of the Constitution, and declared both administrative controls and internal regulations irrelevant for establishing accounting competence.

The Headnote of the Ruling: The Fundamental Principle

The headnote of the ruling summarizes the cardinal principle established by the United Sections:

Although land reclamation consortia are public economic entities, carrying out entrepreneurial activities (not excluded by the comparability of consortium contributions to treasury taxes regarding their imposition and collection), accounting jurisdiction must be denied with respect to their directors, in terms of verifying final accounts – as no "handling" of funds attributable to a public administration can be configured – and ordinary jurisdiction affirmed, considering the lack of an express legislative provision and the irrelevance, for the indicated purpose, of the subjection of said consortia to administrative control, given also their non-assimilability to consortia between local territorial entities. (In affirming this principle, the United Sections highlighted the irrelevance, for the purpose of establishing accounting jurisdiction, of the provision in the internal regulation that subjects the consortium's management account to the control of the Court of Auditors, as this is an inalienable matter, given that the division of jurisdiction between the accounting judge and the ordinary judge must stem from a specific legal discipline, in turn based on Article 103 of the Constitution).

This headnote is crucial. It clarifies that the funds managed by the directors of the consortia do not fall under "handling of public funds" that justifies the Court of Auditors. The decision emphasizes that accounting jurisdiction requires a specific law and cannot be extended by internal regulations. This reinforces the principle of legality and the reservation of law in matters of jurisdiction, protecting legal certainty for all parties involved.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty for the Sector

Order No. 17489/2025 provides awaited legal certainty: the responsibility of the directors of land reclamation consortia for their final accounts lies with the ordinary judge. This ruling is an unavoidable reference for professionals and operators, strengthening constitutional principles on the division of jurisdiction and ensuring greater clarity in a complex sector such as that of public economic entities.