giurisdizione

An appeal to the Court of Cassation (against a decision of the Council of State) for reasons of jurisdiction can never concern a principle of law, even if this principle is stated in an interpretive ruling issued by the Council of State. The 'nomophylactic role' attributed to the plenary session of the Council of State (i.e. its exclusive role in the interpretation of the substantive and procedural rules which it applies), is a safeguard of the balance between the two jurisdictions (ordinary and administrative) that is enshrined in the Italian Constitution.

The paper deals with the mobile boundaries between private autonomy, law, administration and jurisdiction and briefly examines the phenomena of administration by law, simplification and replacement of administration by the administrative judge. Using a lay approach, the paper seeks to find the conceptual coordinates that, without treating the separation of powers as an intangible dogma, can be used to quantify and evaluate the extent to which other authorities have encroached upon the ‘naturally’ assigned domain of public administration.

The paper develops brief critical reflections on the dialogue between national and supranational courts, with particular reference to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, in light of recent procedural reforms.

In the context of breach of legitimate expectation, resulting from the annulment of an unlawful administrative act, the Court of Cassation settles that, as legitimate expectation is an autonomous situation protected in itself and not in its connection with the public interest, the jurisdiction of the administrative judge exists only when the cause of action concerns the methods of exercising administrative power.