Severino law, jurisdiction of the ordinary courts – Il Sole 24 Ore

Court of Cassation – Joint Sections civilians – Order of May 28, 2015 n. 11131
 

With the lodging of the order of the United Sections Civil 11131/2015, which took place today, the Supreme Court has stated that jurisdiction over the dispute until now pending before the Regional Administrative Court of Campania which has “suspended suspension” of Mayor Luigi De Magistris by the prefect of Naples in law enforcement Severino court to ordinary “before which – the judges write – go remittances the parties after resumption in accordance with law. “

To the judges of the United Sections of the Supreme Court Civil suspension from the post of mayor of
De Magistris, in law enforcement Severino,” not It can be traced in the context of disputes relating to the functioning of local authorities “, and therefore under the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals such as the Tar and the Council of State have suspended the effects referring to the Constitutional Court.

“The regulatory framework,” wrote the judges in the order of the United Civil Sections, “certainly suggests that the temporary suspension of the mayor ‘within the meaning of Article 11 of Law Severino” can not in any so it is included among the measures relating to the function of local authorities. ” “Especially,” added the United Sections, “if such suspension is grounded in a non-definitive sentence can not be referred to perform the duties.”

The fact that the suspension of De Magistris from the post of mayor is was decreed by the Prefect of Naples does not justify itself, as argued by counsel for the City of Naples and the mayor, who has jurisdiction over the act lies with the administrative courts and not to the ordinary. The judgment at first instance sentenced the mayor of Naples, Luigi De Magistris, resulting in the suspension from office by decree of the prefect in implementation of Severino, for the United Chambers’ intervened in the proceedings before the organs of ordinary jurisdiction, in which in no way is it doubted that the adoption of the decree of suspension by the prefect, the effect of incorporation of the suspension, was challenged before the ordinary courts. It is therefore not the mere anticipation of the adoption of a decree by the prefect, “reaffirm stoats,” which can lead to the conclusion that the jurisdiction lies with the administrative courts. “