Court of Cassation, sez. UNITED CIVIL - Ordinance No 17 April 2009 9151 - Pres ff. Victoria Rel. Goldoni - Station Realty Ltd. (Mr. Bertolani) c. Castelnuovo di Sotto (Lawyers Alb. Romano, Cugurra and Netherlands).
CIRCUMSTANCES IN FACT
the Station Realty Ltd. has appealed to the regulation of jurisdiction in the prior case brought against him by the municipality of Castelnuovo di Sotto, with appeal to the TAR for Emilia Romagna Parma;
that the company pushed that with a deed of 24.2.1997, the parties have an agreement was planning to be implemented of an integrated program of intervention;
that dispute arose between the parties, the dispute settlement had the same act, 25.2.2002 with the conditions specified therein, which subsequently was
other dispute arose between the parties, that despite attempts of amicable settlement, had led the town to appeal to the Administrative Court, requesting an investigation of the obligation of society to create a multi-purpose cultural center and condemnation of that company to pay the damage caused by failure to carry out the work with a request for injunction ordering the beginning of the realization of the above;
that the applicant contends that jurisdiction rests the ordinary courts, because the dispute relates to the execution of a supplementary agreement or replacement of administrative measures (Law No. 241 of 1990, Art. 11), but an act of transaction, then coming out the performance of obligations by private persons, and this in reference to all the questions of the City, the City argues that, in the proposed defense that the relations between the parties would still be regulated by a convention planning, for which the case would be attracted to the exclusive jurisdiction in which those disputes are not operating in the species L. No 1034, 1971, Art. 5, paragraph 2, referred to by the applicant;
that both sides have presented memory
that the PG has resigned written submissions, instand for declaratory jurisdiction of the administrative judge.
legal considerations
that:
planning the convention seeks to regulate the issuance of building permits and the construction of infrastructure works is a development agreement, which is caught between agreements substitute for the measure against which the L. No 241 of 1990, Art. 11, paragraph 5, provides the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative judge for disputes relating to training, conclusion and execution of those agreements.
The exclusive jurisdiction is not affected in the event, which started and finished some disputes between the municipality and the private settlement agreement with a modification of the original Convention, to be judicially required to perform a given work from the independent city and order the company to pay damages for the delayed execution of the work. The settlement agreement and subsequent variant of the original Convention, however, are in fact related to that convention, so these acts - they contain due to issues relating to infrastructure costs - endoprocedimentali within a complex administrative procedure, designed to allow the build up of private land owned by him and the dispute does not relate to purely capital ratio of the concession, instead assessments involve closely related to that relationship at the moment functional (see Cass. 20.11.2007, No. 24009).
These conclusions are supported by a consolidated and shared, completely and with absolute conviction, believe that draws on the roots of the issue and poses Therefore, a general principle in that field (see Cass. Nos 19494, 18630 \u200b\u200bof 2008 and 2029 (ordza) of the same year), which can not be tarnished by considerations of species on the question of damages, which does not apply to demean the intrinsic analysis of the relationship, which retains its connotation precisely because of the inevitable link to the original Convention.
The action can not be accepted and must therefore be declared the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
costs following the unsuccessful and are settled as per device.
PQM
the Court declares the jurisdiction of Judge administrative and order the applicant to pay the costs, which in liquid 2.000,00 Euros, of which 1.800,00 Euro for fees, in addition to the accessories of the law.
Decided in Rome, March 10, 2009.
Filed in Chancery 17 April 2009.
0 comments:
Post a Comment