Jurisdiction and damages in compliance proceedings: an analysis of the Joint Chambers Order no. 29144/2025

When a citizen or a business wins a case before the Administrative Court, the legal battle may not yet be over. Often, in fact, the public administration does not spontaneously execute the judgment, forcing the prevailing party to initiate the so-called compliance proceeding (giudizio di ottemperanza). But what happens if the "benefit of life" (bene della vita) recognized by the judgment can no longer be obtained in kind? This scenario is addressed by the important clarification provided by the Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation in Order no. 29144 of November 4, 2025, which defines the boundaries of jurisdiction regarding damages for failure to execute a final judgment.

The context of the decision: the action for compliance by equivalent

The ruling stems from a dispute between the Public Administration and Mr. G. (represented by A. L.), concerning the jurisdiction over a claim for damages initiated pursuant to Article 112, paragraph 3, of the Code of Administrative Procedure (c.p.a.). This provision stipulates that, during compliance proceedings, one may request compensation for damages resulting from the failure to execute, violation, or evasion of a final judgment.

The interpretative doubt, which often arises in these delicate dynamics at the boundary between ordinary and administrative courts, concerns the nature of this compensatory action. The Joint Chambers took the opportunity to reaffirm a fundamental principle guaranteeing the concentration of legal remedies.

The headnote of the Joint Chambers

To fully understand the scope of the decision, it is useful to read the official headnote issued by the Supreme Court:

The action for damages under Art. 112, paragraph 3, c.p.a. falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative judge, pursuant to Art. 133, paragraph 1, letter e), no. 1, c.p.a., as it is a remedy with a compensatory nature, intended, that is, to obtain the recognition of the monetary equivalent of the benefit of life that the prevailing party would have been entitled to obtain in kind based on the final judgment.

This passage highlights how the compensation requested in compliance proceedings is not a generic civil liability action (which would fall under the ordinary court), but rather an instrument strictly connected to the implementation of the administrative judgment. It is a compensatory remedy that replaces the specific benefit that is no longer obtainable.

The compensatory nature of damages and the allocation of jurisdiction

The Supreme Court emphasizes that the action under Art. 112, paragraph 3, c.p.a. possesses a marked compensatory nature. This means that:

• The compensation is not an autonomous sanction, but represents the exact monetary equivalent of the benefit of life that the claimant should have obtained if the Public Administration had correctly executed the judgment.
• Competence lies exclusively with the Administrative Judge (g.a.) pursuant to Art. 133, paragraph 1, letter e), no. 1, c.p.a., which reserves to this jurisdiction disputes regarding compliance.
• This avoids the risk of fragmentation of proceedings, ensuring the citizen a single judicial interlocutor to obtain full satisfaction of their right.

The decision aligns with the constitutional principles of the effectiveness of judicial protection and the reasonable duration of the trial, preventing the claimant from having to initiate a new and autonomous claim for damages before the ordinary court after having already obtained a favorable judgment from the administrative judge.

Conclusions: faster and more effective protection for the citizen

In conclusion, Order no. 29144/2025 of the Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation reaffirms the central role of the Administrative Judge as the guarantor of the implementation of their own decisions. For citizens and businesses, this ruling represents a fundamental operational certainty: in the event of non-compliance by the Public Administration, the request for the monetization of the infringed right must be presented directly to the compliance judge. A choice that simplifies the procedural process and accelerates the satisfaction of legitimate claims for damages.