Divorce and the appointment of a support administrator: no stay of proceedings according to Order no. 30177/2025

The protection of highly personal rights and the safeguarding of individual autonomy represent two fundamental pillars of our legal system. When these two aspects intersect in a courtroom, particularly within the context of a family crisis, significant procedural questions arise. An emblematic example concerns the coexistence of a divorce case and a request for the appointment of a support administrator (amministratore di sostegno) for one of the spouses. Must the divorce proceedings be stayed pending a decision by the guardianship judge? The Court of Cassation addressed this delicate question with the significant Order no. 30177 of November 15, 2025.

The case and the decision of the Court of Cassation

The matter originated from the dispute between Ms. C. V. and Mr. B. C., which reached the Supreme Court following the dismissal pronounced by the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The central issue concerned the request to stay the divorce proceedings pending the procedure for the appointment of a support administrator for one of the spouses. According to the appellant, the pendency of such a procedure should have mandated a temporary halt to the divorce case pursuant to Art. 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), thereby constituting a case of necessary prejudiciality.

The judges of the Court of Cassation rejected this argument, confirming the established orientation that categorically excludes the suspension of the proceedings. The Court of Cassation reiterated that a request for divorce pertains to a highly personal right, the ownership and exercise of which remain with the individual, even in the presence of a potential situation of vulnerability that justifies the activation of a protective measure.

The ruling of the Supreme Court

The existence of a relationship of prejudiciality—and therefore the occurrence of a case of necessary suspension pursuant to Art. 295 c.p.c.—must be excluded between the proceedings relating to the appointment of a support administrator for a spouse and the proceedings previously initiated by that same spouse, in the exercise of their own highly personal right, to obtain the dissolution or the cessation of the civil effects of the marriage; in fact, the pendency of proceedings aimed at the opening of a support administration does not in itself exclude the legal standing of the interested party, nor does it have any invalidating effect on prior acts until its conclusion with the appointment of a support administrator, who assists the beneficiary with the effect of guaranteeing them appropriate assistance for the valid performance of specifically identified acts, while preserving their autonomy and freedom of self-determination as much as possible.

This principle clearly expresses the philosophy inspiring the institution of the support administration, introduced into our legal system by Law no. 6/2004. Unlike guardianship (interdizione), which almost totally annuls the subject's capacity to act, the support administration is a flexible measure, modeled on the specific needs of the beneficiary. The Court of Cassation highlights that the pendency of the proceedings for the appointment of the administrator:

• Does not deprive the subject of their active or passive legal standing;
• Does not invalidate acts performed previously;
• Aims exclusively to assist the vulnerable subject for the acts identified by the guardianship judge, without affecting their overall capacity for self-determination regarding highly personal rights, such as that of ending the marital bond.

Autonomy of the beneficiary and highly personal rights

The right to file for divorce is a highly personal and uncoercible right. Preventing or delaying the exercise of this right while awaiting a decision on a support administration would mean unjustifiably restricting the individual's freedom of choice. The Constitutional Court and the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation have repeatedly emphasized how the autonomy of the beneficiary must be preserved as much as possible. The support administrator, once appointed, does not replace the spouse in existential and highly personal choices, but assists them where necessary, ensuring that their will can be expressed in a protected and informed manner.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order no. 30177/2025 of the Court of Cassation reaffirms a principle of legal civilization: the vulnerability of a person cannot translate into a paralysis of their fundamental rights. The divorce process can and must continue, while ensuring that the potential appointment of a support administrator serves to support, and never to stifle, the free determination of the spouse in making their most intimate life choices.