Municipal expenses and the relationship between private citizens and administrators: commentary on Order no. 19892 of 2024

The recent intervention by the Court of Cassation with Order no. 19892 of 2024 represents an important reflection on off-budget municipal expenses and the role of public administrators. This ruling clarifies the modalities of the emergence of the obligatory relationship between the private party and the administrator or official, establishing useful criteria for the correct interpretation of current regulations.

The regulatory context

The central issue concerns the interpretation of Article 23, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree no. 66 of 1989, converted with amendments into Law no. 144 of 1989. This provision establishes that the obligatory relationship, regarding remuneration, arises directly with the administrator or official who has allowed the service. It is important to emphasize that the act of "allowing" does not require active initiative on the part of the official; it is sufficient that they do not express dissent and provide their services in the presence of a valid obligation on the part of the local authority.

The ruling's maxim

Off-budget municipal expenses - Obligatory relationship between private party and administrator or official - Prerequisites - De facto execution permitted by the administrator or official - Notion of "allowing" - Case law. In the matter of off-budget expenses of Municipalities (and, more generally, of local authorities), for the interpretation of Article 23, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree no. 66 of 1989 (converted with amendments into Law no. 144 of 1989), which establishes the emergence of the obligatory relationship, regarding remuneration, directly with the administrator or official who has allowed the service, it must be excluded that the act of "allowing" the service must consist of a role of initiative or decisive intervention by the official, it being sufficient that they omit to express their dissent and instead provide their services in the presence of a valid and binding obligation of the local authority. (In application of the said principle, the Supreme Court has quashed the judgment of the territorial court which had stopped at the formal acknowledgment represented by the signing of the professional service contract by an official other than the one under examination, without assessing the role played by the latter in the phase preceding the conclusion of the contract and in its execution).

Practical implications

This order has several practical implications for the operations of local authorities and for private parties who have dealings with them. Among these, we can highlight:

• The need for greater attention from administrators in expressing their dissent.
• The importance of the role played by each official in the entire process, not just at the time of contract signing.
• The possibility for private parties to claim credits even in the absence of formal consent, if they demonstrate the execution of services useful to the local authority.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order no. 19892 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the boundaries of the relationship between private citizens and public administration, clarifying how the "allowing" by an official can have a relevant impact on the obligations undertaken by the local authority. This ruling invites reflection on the importance of transparency and responsibility in the management of public spending, promoting greater awareness on the part of both administrators and citizens.