Order No. 22863 of 2024: Jurisdiction and Damages for Failure to Adopt Measures

The recent Order No. 22863 of August 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important considerations regarding jurisdiction in cases of damages caused by the public administration's failure to adopt measures. This article analyzes the ruling, clarifying the fundamental principles derived from it.

Context of the Ruling

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns the competent jurisdiction to decide on a claim for damages brought by a private party against the administrative authority for harm suffered due to unadopted measures. The Court has established that jurisdiction lies with the administrative judge, even if the claim is brought independently and not as ancillary to a finding of illegality in the public administration's actions.

Claim for damages for failure to adopt measures - Jurisdiction - Of the administrative judge - Independent and not ancillary claim - Irrelevance for jurisdictional purposes - Rationale. The cognizance of a private party's claim for damages caused by the failure to adopt acts that should have been issued by the competent administrative authority falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative judge, even if the claim is brought independently – and not as an ancillary matter – to the assessment of the public administration's illegality, because it presupposes, in any case, the evaluation, which belongs to the administrative judge, of the lawfulness of the exercise of administrative power.

Implications of the Ruling

This decision has several practical implications. Firstly, it clarifies that the public administration's liability for damages arising from unadopted acts cannot be separated from the evaluation of the exercise of its power. Therefore, citizens who suffer damages due to this inaction have the right to turn to the administrative judge, who will be tasked with evaluating both the lawfulness of the public administration's conduct and any potential compensation.

• Administrative jurisdiction extends to independent claims for damages.
• The administrative judge must assess the lawfulness of the exercise of administrative power.
• Citizens can obtain compensation for damages caused by the public administration even in the absence of a prior finding of illegality.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 22863 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in defining jurisdiction in matters of damages. It underscores the need for a broad interpretation of administrative jurisdiction, which includes the capacity to assess claims for damages even when they are brought independently. This clarification is crucial for ensuring effective and timely justice for citizens facing damages resulting from the public administration's inaction.