Jurisdiction: Commentary on Cassation Order No. 31242 of 2024

The recent Order No. 31242 of the Court of Cassation, issued on December 6, 2024, offers important insights regarding the division of jurisdiction between ordinary courts and administrative courts, particularly in cases of employment disputes within public bodies. The central issue concerns the liability of hierarchical superiors and the applicability of rules relating to mobbing.

The Case Under Review

The appeal was filed by @Sa.Pa., a manager at AGCOM, who sued their superior B.B. for non-pecuniary damages arising from acts of mobbing. In the first instance, the Court of Rome partially granted the compensation claim, while the Court of Appeal of Rome, overturning the judgment, declared the lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, arguing that such disputes should be handled by the administrative judge.

Jurisdiction is determined based on the claim, and regard must be had to the substantial *petitum*, i.e., the intrinsic nature of the position brought before the court.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, establishing that jurisdiction belonged to the ordinary judge. It is noteworthy that the Court emphasized that the liability of a hierarchical superior cannot be considered merely contractual, but rather tortious, based on the principle of *neminem laedere* (do not harm others). In other words, B.B.'s conduct is not solely attributable to their role within the body but must also be assessed in relation to the mobbing acts perpetrated against @Sa.Pa.

The Court highlighted that, although the employment relationship may constitute a context, mobbing actions and persecutory conduct must be treated as independent torts, not automatically attributable to administrative jurisdiction.

Practical and Jurisprudential Implications

This Order has significant implications for public employees facing mobbing situations. In particular, it clarifies that:

• The liability of hierarchical superiors for mobbing acts can be pursued in civil proceedings, even if they belong to public bodies.
• The principle of *neminem laedere* is fundamental in assessing the unlawful conduct of a superior towards a subordinate.
• The jurisdiction of the ordinary judge applies in cases of tortious liability, excluding administrative jurisdiction.

These points offer a viable path for employees who experience harassment or persecutory behavior in the workplace, allowing them to seek justice in a more favorable forum.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 31242 of the Court of Cassation represents an important step in defining the limits of jurisdiction concerning employment disputes involving public bodies. It consolidates the idea that the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge can extend to unlawful conduct perpetrated by hierarchical superiors, opening the door to greater protection for workers. It is crucial for legal professionals to pay attention to these jurisprudential developments to adequately assist their clients.