Jurisdiction and notice of mortgage for public funding: an analysis of Order no. 29686/2025

When a citizen or a business receives a notice of impending mortgage registration from the Italian Revenue Agency-Collection (Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione), the immediate reaction is often to turn to the tax courts. However, the determination of the competent judge does not depend on the body issuing the act, but rather on the nature of the underlying claim. The Court of Cassation, with the significant Order no. 29686 of November 10, 2025, addressed this very delicate issue, drawing a clear line between ordinary and tax jurisdiction regarding public subsidies and debt recovery.

The case: beneficiary default and recovery of funds

The matter originates from the disbursement of public funding granted under Legislative Decree no. 185 of 2000, aimed at promoting self-entrepreneurship. Following the alleged breach of the obligations assumed by the beneficiary, the granting authority initiated debt recovery procedures, culminating in the notification of a preliminary notice of mortgage registration by the collection agent. The beneficiary filed an opposition to execution pursuant to Article 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the right to proceed. Thus, the problem arose of establishing which judge had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

The ruling of the Supreme Court

The ordinary jurisdiction (and not the tax jurisdiction) has authority over disputes relating to opposition under Art. 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a preliminary notice of mortgage registration issued by the Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione, where the claim is not based on a tax demand by the Public Administration but on the breach of obligations assumed by the beneficiary of a loan under Legislative Decree no. 185 of 2000, as it concerns a claim pertaining to the enforcement phase of the subsidy relationship and the breach of obligations to which the specific grant provision is subject, without involving the legitimacy of the grantor's discretionary assessment regarding the existence, extent, and manner of the disbursement.

Commentary: why jurisdiction lies with the ordinary court

The Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation have clarified that, when the dispute concerns the breach of obligations linked to public funding already granted, jurisdiction lies with the ordinary court. The key points expressed by the Court can be summarized as follows:

• Absence of tax claim: The claim asserted by the administration is not of a tax nature, as it does not derive from the exercise of fiscal imposition power, but from the failure to comply with contractual agreements linked to the public disbursement.
• Enforcement phase of the relationship: The challenge does not concern the initial (genetic) phase of the Public Administration's discretionary evaluation on whether or not to grant the funding (a phase that would fall under the administrative judge), but rather the subsequent phase of the execution of the subsidy relationship.
• Protection of the citizen: The instrument of opposition under Art. 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the ordinary court is confirmed as the appropriate remedy to challenge the creditor's right to proceed with forced execution or precautionary measures such as a mortgage.

This orientation is in line with previous case law (such as Cass. S.U. no. 1946 of 2024), consolidating the principle that the nature of the protected subjective position and the origin of the claim determine the allocation of jurisdiction, regardless of the collection instrument used.

Conclusions and operational reflections

The ruling in question offers important practical guidance for legal professionals and businesses. Before challenging a notice of impending mortgage registration, it is essential to carefully analyze the genesis of the debt. If the claim derives from the breach of a loan agreement or a public subsidy, the opposition action must be filed before the ordinary civil court, avoiding useless and costly procedural errors before the Tax Justice Courts.