University Canteen Service: Is it a Public Service? The Court of Cassation Clarifies with Ruling No. 17474/2025

The debate on the public or private nature of essential services is always relevant. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 17474, filed on May 8, 2025, has provided crucial clarification on the classification of the university canteen service. This decision is of great interest to the student community and to anyone questioning the protection of the right to education in Italy, outlining precise legal responsibilities.

The Context: An Offence Against Public Administration

The judicial case involved the defendant C. C., accused of the crime of interruption of a public office or service, pursuant to Article 340 of the Criminal Code. The central issue, already ruled upon by the Court of Appeal of Bologna and then partially annulled by the Court of Cassation, concerned the classification of the university canteen service provided in the Emilia-Romagna Region. Was it a public service, even though it was managed by a private entity?

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: Public Function, Private Management

The university canteen service provided by the Emilia-Romagna Region is to be classified as a public service, as it is subject to public regulation and falls within the institutional purposes of the Regional Agency for Higher Education, established by Law of July 27, 2007, no. 15, for the management of the integrated system of interventions and services instrumental to the implementation of the right to university education and higher education, without the private structure of the awarded company being an obstacle to this classification. (Case concerning the crime under Art. 340 of the Criminal Code).

The Court, presided over by Dr. E. A. and with Dr. S. R. as rapporteur, clarified that a university canteen service is public if:

• it is subject to public regulation;
• it falls within the institutional purposes of a public body, such as the Regional Agency for Higher Education, established to implement the right to education.

The public nature of the service, therefore, is not altered by private management. The canteen is instrumental to the right to education (Art. 34 of the Constitution), and its interruption constitutes an offense to a public interest, punishable under criminal law according to Article 340 of the Criminal Code.

Conclusions: Protection of Rights and Responsibilities

Ruling no. 17474/2025 constitutes an important precedent. It reiterates that the classification of a service as public depends on its function and regulatory framework, not on the nature of the manager. This implies:

• For students: Greater protection of the right to education, with essential services recognized and protected.
• For public bodies and private managers: The need to operate with awareness of the public function performed and the related responsibilities.

In an era of outsourcing, this ruling emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the public purpose of certain activities, ensuring that the collective interest prevails. The Court of Cassation has thus reinforced a cornerstone principle of our Constitution, in defense of the right to education.