Order No. 21817 of 2024: Territorial Jurisdiction in Pecuniary Obligations towards Public Administrations

The recent Order No. 21817 of August 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on territorial jurisdiction in cases involving pecuniary debts of public administrations. Specifically, the Court has established that the criterion for identifying the competent court cannot be applied according to Article 1182 of the Civil Code, but must follow public accounting rules. This decision is relevant not only for legal professionals dealing with litigation against public administrations but also for citizens seeking to assert their rights.

Content of the Order

The Court specified that, in cases relating to pecuniary debts of public administrations, the

forum destinatae solutionis is not determined by applying art. 1182 of the Civil Code, but rather based on public accounting rules (art. 54 Royal Decree No. 2440 of 1923 and arts. 278, letter d, 287, and 407 Royal Decree No. 827 of 1924), with the consequence that the judge of the place where the treasury office responsible for making the payment is located has territorial jurisdiction, which is the province where the creditor is domiciled, unless the defendant administration has a single reference Treasury.

This position deviates from previous judicial interpretations, which tended to refer to the Civil Code to establish jurisdiction.

Implications of the Decision

The choice to apply public accounting rules to determine territorial jurisdiction has several implications, including:

• Clarity in determining the competent court, reducing uncertainties for citizens and legal professionals.
• Greater protection of creditors' rights, who can now assert their rights in the location of the treasury office.
• A possible increase in litigation, as greater clarity may encourage citizens to assert their rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 21817 of 2024 represents a significant step towards defining territorial jurisdiction in cases against public administrations. This decision not only clarifies how public accounting rules are applied but also offers an important opportunity for reflection for lawyers and citizens on their rights and how to access justice. However, it remains crucial to monitor how this jurisprudence will evolve in the coming years and what impact it will have on administrative litigation.