In Italian legal order, the administrative jurisdictional order is completely separated from the ordinary one (criminal and civil courts).
It aims at guaranteeing the respect by the Public administration of the principle of rule of law and to protect individual rights and legitimate interests in the relationship with public powers.
In the adminsitrative jurisdiction there are two instances.
Administrative Courts of first instance are the Regional administrative tribunals, which work in each Region. The judge of second and last instance is the Council of State.
The birth of the administrative justice in Italy was in 1889 with the creation of the fourth section of the Council of State, which had originally only advisory functions, with litigation functions. (Law 31 march 1889, n. 5992, so called law Crispi).
In the following years other two litigation sections of the Council of State were created (the fifth and the sixth one).
Before the creation of the fourth section of the Council of State, from 1865 to 1889, the only judge for disputes between citizens and public administration was the civil judge, according to a monistic model established by the law abolishing the administrative contentious (law 20 march 1865, n. 2248).
Hence only in 1889 the Italian system became a dualistic system, as it exists now.
Originally, there was only one level of instance before the litigation sections of the Council of State.
The Constitution provided the creation of first instance administrative judges, on regional basis (art. 125 cost).
In 1971, the Regional administrative tribunals (Tribunali amministrativi regionali - TAR) were created as administrative judges of first instance and the Council of State became the administrative court of second and last instance.
The Regional administrative tribunals are 21, seated in each region of Italy. In eight regions, which are the biggest, there is also a separated section of the Regional Administrative Court.
In 2000, a legislative act provided the general competence of administrative courts with the power to order compensation ( damages) for liability of the public administrations for its unlawful decisions.
In 2010 a Code of Administrative Process (CAP) was enacted.
According to article 103 of the Italian Constitution, enacted in 1948, the administrative judge has jurisdiction over legally protected interests in matters regarding administration, and over individual rights in the specific areas laid down by the law (areas of so-called “exclusive jurisdiction”). (see articles 7.1 and 133 CAP enacted with legislative decree no. 104/2010).
The administrative judge has general competence regarding appeals of an administrative decision.
Legally protected interests (so-called “interessi legittimi”) may be defined as the subjective situations granted to an individual who is subject to the exercise of the administration’s power. These interests involve the possibility of contesting the improper exercise of administrative power (or the possibility of influencing the proper exercise of administrative power) seeking the invalidity of the act and compensation for damages.
The CAP, provided by legislative decree no. 104/2010, which came into force on September 16, 2010, in order to assign jurisdiction to an administrative or ordinary judge, follows two criteria:
In accordance with article 7, par. 1, CAP, the administrative courts have jurisdiction over the protection of legitimate interests against the public administration and, in particular matters laid down by law, including the protection of subjective rights concerning administrative decisions, acts, agreements or behaviours adopted by public administrations, as long as they are related (even indirectly) to the exercise of a public power.
The main cases of “exclusive jurisdiction” of the administrative judge concern public services, urban planning and construction, public proceedings for awarding contracts for public works, and supplies and services, competition law, and the actions of independent Authorities. The list of areas of exclusive jurisdiction is set out in article 133 CAP.
Article 30 CAP also lays down that the administrative judge can order the administration to compensate for damages suffered by an individual due to illegal administrative activity.
The administrative judge can quash an illegal or invalid administrative decision.
The review of administrative decisions does not as a rule fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, but within that of the administrative judge (article 103 of the Constitution; article 7.1, CAP).
According to art. 5, l. 20 May 1865 no. 1048, the ordinary judge does not have any power to quash administrative decisions. This power belongs to administrative Courts only.
The ordinary Court may examine administrative acts only incidentally, within the framework of disputes lying within its competence, concerning subjective rights, and disapply them, if unlawful, that is to say to declare them without effects in the specific case.
Nevertheless, in specific matters, ordinary judges have jurisdiction on administrative decisions, for example in the case of administrative monetary sanctions (law no. 689/1981), and of denial of asylum and international protection where subjective rights are at stake.
Italian Consititution (art. 101, 103, 125)
Law of 6 december 1971, no. 1034 (creation of the administrative regional tribunals).
Law of 27 april 1982, no. 1861 about the administrative judicial order.
Legislative decree no. 104/2010 (Code of the administrative trial).
2.2.1. General organisation of the administrative jurisdictional order
Is administrative justice rendered by specialized courts or by specialized chambers set within jurisdictions with a general competence? Does the administrative jurisdiction include several levels of jurisdiction (first instance, appeal, cassation)? Are there specialized administrative courts?
In the Italian system administrative courts are different judges from the ordinary courts (civil and criminal) and are specifically regulated by the Constitution.
Administrative Courts of first instance are the Regional administrative tribunals (TAR), which work in each Region. The judge of second and last instance is the Council of State.
The Supreme Court of Cassation has competence in matters of jurisdiction and, only regarding such questions, may represent a third instance judge in litigation with the public administration.
There are no specialized administrative courts, whitin the administrative justice.
2.2.2. Internal organisation of administrative courts and composition of the bench of judges
Are administrative courts organized in chambers or divisions? Are these chambers or divisions specialized? Are there several degrees of formation of the court (single judge, collegiate panels with three, five ... judges, full court)?
Administrative courts are organized in chambers.
The Council of State in its central head-office, is subdivided into four litigation sections (the Third Section of the Council of State was transformed from a consultative section into a jurisdictional section and it had its first hearings on 14 January 2011) and two advisory ones.
One litigation section of the Sicilian Council of Administrative Justice (article 100 CAP) has the power of reforming decisions reached by the TAR in this region (in addition to an advisory section with a jurisdiction limited to the regional territory).
The first instance administrative courts consist of twenty-one Regional Administrative Tribunals, operating in the regional capitals, and eight special separated sections.
In the biggest courts, where there are many chambers, there is a « specialization » of the different sections about specific matters.
The administrative courts work in a panel of judges, single judge not being envisaged in administrative courts.
The panel is composed by three members in the TAR and by five members in the Consiglio di Stato.
According to art. 99 CAP, the section to which the appeal has been assigned may remit an application for examination by the plenary meeting of the Council of State with an order, issued at the request of the parties or ex officio, if it detects that the point of law submitted to it for examination has brought about, or might bring about conflicts with case law.
The plenary meeting of the Council of State work in a panel of thirteen judges and is chaired by the President of the Council of State.
The Administrative Courts (and the Council of State) can render decisions as a sole judge only in exceptional cases. This happens, for example, in the case of extinction and estoppel under Article 35 CAP, which can be pronounced by decree by the president of the Section or by a judge whom the president has delegated (article 85 CAP). Within a period of sixty days from the communication, each of the interested parties may challenge it to the panel, with an act notified to all the other parties.
Moreover, before the treatment of the interim measure application by the panel, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, so as not to allow even a delay until the date the court meets in chambers, the applicant may request the President of the Regional Administrative Court or of the Section to provide for interim precautionary monocratic measures. (art. 56 CAP). This decision is given by decree. The decree loses its efficacy if the panel does not confirm it at the chamber hearing a few days later.
2.2.3. Do administrative courts have advisory powers (advice to the administration, government, parliament, etc.)?
According to the Constitution (art. 100), the Council of State also has an advisory role in administrative law and in upholding justice within the administration (there are in fact two advisory sections and one for normative decisions).
Administrative judges of first instance, however, have only litigation functions.
According to art. 17 of l. n. 400/1988, the Council of State is in charge of advising the Government and the Ministries regarding all the drafting of second-level regulations.
Moreover, specific laws may require advice of the Council of State for legislative decrees.
Very often, the Council of State contributes to the drafting of legislation which collects in a single text all the rules concerning a certain sector (the so-called “testo unico”).
Moreover, the Council of State provides its binding advice in the procedure of recourse to the President of the Republic and gives its opinion regarding delegated acts of the Government, if the law of delegation states so.
Finally, the Council of State can be asked to give its opinion on legal questions by the Parliament, Regions, independent authorities, etc..
The dual nature of the powers vested in the Council of State (advisor and judge) entails a distinction between the consultative sections and the litigation sections, which are different in nature.
The judges belonging to the advisory sections of the Council of State cannot serve at the same time in the litigation sections. In all cases, a judge having assumed an advisory duty must disclaim competence with regard to litigation related to the same case.
2.2.4. Tools and documentary resources available to judges
Administrative courts in Italy are all computerized and have Internet access. Each judicial official has a fixed IT workstation and every judge has at least one laptop. They are all connected both to the internal network and to the Internet.
Each judge can access with wireless network various databases regarding case law of administrative courts and other courts, legislative regulations, all legal acts of the European Union and ECJ case law, international conventions, etc.
In addition to electronic documentation, the Council of State has a valuable and exhaustive library, which contains legal publications (official bulletins of laws and statutes, law reports, law commentaries, manuals and monographic publications, as well as specialised legal periodicals and other periodicals) and many volumes.
There is also a library in each TAR , where books and law reviews may be consulted.
How is the recruitment of judges organised (competitive exam, political appointment, peer election…)? What are their statutory guarantees while in office, particularly in terms of independence?
The status of the administrative judge is the same as that ordinary judge and magistrates as regards guarantees of independence and impartiality. There is a specific self-governing body for administrative judges (Consiglio di Presidenza della giustizia amministrativa) which has competence on appointment, transfer, promotion, disciplinary measure, etc.
The recruitment of administrative judges of first instance (TAR) is only through public competition, consisting of written and oral exams on juridical subjects.
Only ordinary judges, lawyers, lawyers of State and civil servants (if they have sufficient seniority for their category) can participate.
The recruitment of judges of the Council of State is provided partly by promotion from the TAR (50% of vacancies), partly by the Government’s appointment (25% of vacancies) and partly by a direct public competition (25% of vacancies), which is reserved for judges of the TAR after completing one year of TAR duties, lawyers of State, ordinary judges, etc.
All administrative judges shall have previous experience as ordinary judges, lawyers, State lawyers or officials of the public administration. Hence, administrative judges assume their duties immediately, with no additional initial training period.
Professional training courses of a few days each are offered later on to update and integrate judicial skills and competences.
Promotion is on the basis of seniority, except in cases of misconduct.
TAR judges start their career as Referendaires (first appointment), then, after four years, First Referendaires, after four more years Counsellors of TAR, and after a further four years Presidents of Section.
Judges of the Council of State start as Counsellors of State and may then become Presidents of Section of the Council of State, if they have sufficient seniority.
Appointment to the position of TAR president or to a section of the Council of State requires an assessment, which is generally on the basis of seniority.
The administrative judges may, in certain narrowly defined circumstances, assume responsibilities in public administrations or in high institutions (Constitutional Court, Presidency of the Republic), on prior authorization from the Council of Presidency of Administrative Justice (the self-governing body for administrative judges).
What kind of petition may applicants file before administrative courts? May applicants only request the invalidation of an administrative act? May administrative courts rule on compensatory claims?
Traditionally, administrative judges could only quash unlawful and invalid administrative decisions.
Since 2000, they also have the general power to condemn the administration to pay compensation for any damage caused.
When administrative judges annul an administrative decision, they do not expressly order the administration to do something or to abstain from doing something, but rather, in the arguments for their decisions, they indicate what the administration must do or must not do during the review process leading to a new administrative decision (e.g. they may assert that the administration must submit a particular document, or that it must take fresh action based on the criteria indicated in the decision).
It is a consolidated principle that judges cannot replace the administration but they can certainly direct the administration to ensure full compliance with the judgment.
Nevertheless, article 34.1.e CAP now lays down that the administrative court, as it annuls an act, can, within the limits of the request, specify suitable measures to ensure the implementation of the judgment including appointing a provisional administrator (ad acta commissioner), to implement that specific decision.
The CAP, partly following some solutions already defined by jurisprudence, has increased the types of decisions that can be pronounced by the administrative judge.
Along with the traditional action of annulment, article 30 CAP regulates judgments ordering compensation for damage, payments of sums, and actions to be taken.
These actions can be filed at the same time as another action or, only in cases of exclusive jurisdiction, they can be filed autonomously.
Hence claimants can seek, at the same time, the annulment of the administrative act and the payment of compensation for damages or the restitution of wrongfully paid sums of money.
The annulment of an administrative decision (adjudication of public contracting) may have an indirect effect on a contract which the administration has entered into, leading to its nullity or its ineffectiveness (subsequently obligating the administration to either enter into another contract with the petitioner or restart the process) (articles 121-124 CAP).
Are there any emergency procedures available before administrative courts? In the affirmative, do they cover the whole field of administrative law or do they concern only specific areas of administrative action (individual freedoms, public procurement, etc.)?
In all cases and at any stage of administrative legal proceedings, the parties may file a request for an emergency measure. This request is handled through a very rapid procedure, in a chamber hearing where lawyers can orally discuss the case (articles 55-62 CAP). The panel rules on the interlocutory application in the first meeting in chambers following the twentieth day from the notification and, likewise, the tenth day from the depositing of the application. The parties may submit briefs and documents up to two clear days before the meeting in chambers.
The decision on interim relief is taken by the panel in the form of ordinance, which may be appealed before the Council of State.
For extremely urgent requests, the President of the section can provide for interim precautionary monocratic measures. (art. 56 CAP). This decision is rendered by decree. The decree loses its efficacy if the college does not confirm it at the chamber hearing.
According to art. 55 CAP, the party asking for interim relief has to demonstrate that it will suffer a serious and irreparable harm during the time necessary to reach a decision on the claim (periculum in mora) and that the claim is expected to be founded (fumus boni iuris).
Interim measures can have different contents.
The traditional precautionary measure was the suspension of the effects of the challenged act; in addition, the judge may order the administration to re-examine the case which has already been decided. Moreover, the judge may enact an injunction to pay a compensatory sum provisionally or another measure which appears, in the circumstances, most likely to temporarily ensure the implementation of the measure.
Finally, if it considers that the applicant’s claim is well grounded and adequately protectable with the prompt definition of the judgment of merits, the Court may set the date of the hearing to discuss the merits.
Where a decision on the precautionary application has irreversible effects, the panel may order the provision of security, also by a guarantor, to which the granting or denial of the injunction is to be subject.
3.3. Procedural principles before administrative courts
What are the rules governing the conduct of litigation before administrative courts? What are the guarantees offered to litigants? What are the principles governing the relationship between judges and litigants?
The first part of the CAP provides the fundamental principles of the administrative trial.
According to art. 1, the administrative jurisdiction shall ensure full and effective protection in accordance with the principles of the Italian Constitution and European law.
The administrative trial implements the principles of the equal standing of the parties, adversary proceedings and due process (Art. 2, 1 par., CAP) in conformity with art. 111 of the Constitution and the case law of the ECtHR and CJEU.
The administrative court and the parties will cooperate to achieve the reasonable duration of trials (Art. 2, 2 par., CAP).
Article 3 CAP establishes that the judge and the parties must write in a clear and concise manner.
Within the time limits of the various phases of the legal proceeding, each defendant has the right to conduct his or her defence.
Administrative legal proceedings are conducted essentially through written documents. The parties support their arguments by producing written statements. Only the most significant points are generally addressed verbally during the public hearing.
An appeal against an administrative decision is examined by the judge, within the limits of the complainant’s interest and within the arguments presented to the Court by the claimant.
The judge cannot bring new arguments ex officio because the purpose of administrative justice is not to verify the administration’s proper functioning in general, but to determine whether the contested abuse of power violated the complainant’s rights or interests.
The administrative judge can only quash the challenged decision if affected by breach of law, misuse or abuses of power, or lack of competence (art. 29 CAP) and cannot substitute the administration in its discretionary powers, except in specific cases, such as the proceeding on enforcement of judgements (so called “giudizio di ottemperanza”).
According to art. 64 CAP, the parties are responsible for providing the evidence that is available to them regarding the facts underlying the issues and pleas.
Except in cases provided for by law, the court must base its decision on the evidence offered by the parties as well as the facts not specifically challenged by the parties involved.
The administrative court may, ex officio, also arrange for the acquisition of information and documents available to the public administration for the purposes of reaching a decision . The court must use its discretion in weighing the evidence and can infer proof from the behaviour of the parties during the trial.
In relation to which norm (regulations, laws, international conventions, constitution ...) do administrative judges control administrative acts? Are they competent to control the conformity of laws and regulations with the Constitution (constitutional judicial review)? Are they competent to control the conformity of laws and regulations with international treaties (judicial review of international law)?
Control of the legality of an administration’s act is made with reference to rules of domestic law (Constitution and rules of constitutional value, laws, administrative regulations) as well as rules of European law (treaties, secondary community legislation, general rules of EU law) and international law.
When a judge has doubts about the constitutionality of a law, the question is referred to the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, the proceeding must be suspended until the decision of the Constitutional Court, which is binding on the referring court.
If there is a conflict the judge can give a conforming interpretation, disapply and/or submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU.
Regarding international conventions, notably the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Italian Constitutional Court (judgment no. 348 and 349 of 2007) has stated that the Constitution prevails over international law and that, in order to check if a domestic law complies with the Convention, judges mast refer a question to the Constitutional Court and cannot disapply it.
Hence, decentralized control is allowed for by EU law but not for potential conflicts between Italian and international law including the ECHR where reference to the Constitutional Court is mandatory.
May administrative judges control all acts taken by the administration? Are certain acts exempted from this control?
All administrative decisions, including those issued by the highest levels of the administration, may be challenged before the administrative judge. Only political acts cannot be appealed (article 7 CAP).
Which degree of control is used by administrative judges? Does this degree of control vary according to the nature of the challenged act and/or the margin of appreciation left to the administration?
The right to judicial review is part of the right to effective judicial protection.
The scope of judicial review is wide and its intensity varies according to the nature of the administrative power and the type of act.
The administrative judge’s examination is, for the most, limited to a verification of legitimacy (judicial review): conformity or otherwise of the act with the rule of law.
Altouhgt the judge cannot generally substitute his or her personal discretionary evaluation to that of the administration, nevertheless, judicial review is not purely formal, insofar as the scrutiny of legality is currently quite deep.
The judge, thanks to the instrument of the excess of power, can examine the administration’s exercise of discretionary power and check its proportionality, reasonability, etc.
This means that the judge must ascertain whether the administration’s decision, even if within its power, met all the requirements provided by the law and obeyed the rules regulating the exercise of discretionary powers (proportionality, knowledge of all the relevant facts, reasonability, consideration of all the public and private interests involved, etc.).
When judges disagree with a ruling, are they allowed to express a dissenting opinion? In the affirmative, may they express it in all cases?
A public dissenting opinion by one judge is not authorised because the deliberation of the panel is secret.
However, if the reporting judge does not agree with the decision taken by the majority, she/he may ask the president not to write the judgment. In this case, another judge of the panel will write the decision.
Is there a specific digital procedure for the submission of claims?
Starting from January 1st 2017, the Italian Administrative Justice system has been making use of telematic administrative proceedings. The newly adopted system provides for the elimination of conventional paper documents, which, however, may still be used by way of support or under emergency circumstances. Digitalization permeates every step of the proceedings, all the documents and the obligations complied with by the parties involved and by judges and courts, which can and must be carried out only by telematic means.
Accordingly, procedural documents are drafted, signed, notified and filed by telematic means, and this also applies to the drafting and publication of decisions.
Judges and other judicial officials have access in real time to all the digital documents contained in the case-files by means of remote connections. In addition, they can and must draft, sign with their digital signatures and deposit their judgments by telematic means.
Likewise, attorneys can handle their proceedings online. They can begin the proceedings and deposit all the necessary acts and instruments by means of computers. In addition, they have access to all the documents, or they can follow the different steps of the proceedings and fulfill all of their obligations with no need to physically go to court, unless they need to appear before it.
May judges amend administrative acts by substituting their own analysis to that of the administration or may they only invalidate them? May they compel the administration to act in a specific way (power of injunction, penalties)?
Preliminary, we have to distinguish between discretionary powers of administrative bodies (i.e., when administrative authorities have the power to decide about the public and private interests involved in its decision, the so called “administrative discretion”) and the so called technical discretion (i.e., when administrative authorities do not de-cide about interests but appreciate the fact with a technical but debatable valuation.
The technical discretion is connoted by the application of rules of a non-exact science having a certain degree of disputability; it therefore differs from the “technical verification”, which is based on the application of an exact science in order to attain a sure outcome.
We have instead “administrative discretion”, when the Public Administration aims at a public purpose attributed to its care by law, by means of an activity of selection, acquisition, comparison and evaluation of public and private interests implied in its action.
In case of administrative discretion, even if the administrative judge cannot substitute the administration, the judicial reviw is very wide and deep, thanks to the instrument of the eccess of power (see. Answer n. 3.5.).
Instead, in case of technical verifications (simple factual evaluations) the judge can control the facts without any limitations (for example think of the calculation of an alcoholic degree of a beverage, or the calculation of the square metres of a building ect.) In this case, the judge can appoint an expert to evaluate the facts.
In case of technical discretion, administrative judge may exercise a control concerning complex factual evaluations. In the former, the scrutity can involve the choice and the appropriatness of the method to select and interpret the facts. In the latter the scrutiny verifies reliability, reasonableness, internal consistency and lack of arbitrariness.
In all these cases, the judge, if the claim is founded, may invalidate the administrative acts.
Only in specific cases provided by law, such as the proceeding on enforcement of judgements (so called “giudizio di ottemperanza”), the administrative judge can substitute the administration and compel the administration to act in a specific way.
The proceeding on enforcement of judgements may be used to ensure that judges’ decisions are enforced, if decisions are not spontaneously executed by the administration, (articles 112-115 CAP). This procedure is applied to the administration or similar entities (for example public-law institutions) for various decisions, including those rendered by ordinary judges.
This procedure is particularly effective insofar as the judge does not merely order the administration to comply within a specific time; the judges may also declare null and void any acts in violation or circumvention of the judgment and appoint a Commissioner (Commissario ad acta), who acts in place of the administration and takes any measures required to enforce the decision. This is one of the rare cases where the administrative judge also has substantive powers.
Unless this is manifestly unfair, and if there are no other reasons for impediment, the judge may also determine, at the request of one party, the sum of money payable by the defendant for each violation or subsequent non-compliance, or for any delay in the carrying out of the res judicata; that ruling is enforceable. This is the so called « astrainte » (art. 114, par.3 CAP).
To whom do decisions rendered by administrative judges apply (absolute effect – erga omnes - of res judicata, relative effect of res judicata)? What criterion is used to choose between these two options?
Once it can no longer be appealed, the judgment becomes res judicata and is binding for the parties involved in the proceeding.
In certain cases, the final judgment may have effects ultra partes, in the case, for example, of judgments pronouncing the annulment of a regulatory act, whose effects are not limited to the parties in the dispute, but affect everyone because the cancelled rule no longer exists .
May rulings of administrative courts be challenged? What is the time limit for appeal? Before which authorities / jurisdictions can these rulings be challenged?
The decisions of administrative courts of first instance may be challenged before the Council of State.
The time limit for the appeal is 60 days from the notification of the first instance judgment and 6 months from the publication of the decision.
The average time between the lodging of an appeal against a first instance decision and the definitive decision of the Consigio di Stato, taking into consideration all kinds of disputes, is the following:
Consiglio di Stato
|Consiglio di StatoAll kind of disputes
Nevertheless, the average time taken between the lodging of an appeal against a first instance decision and the definitive judgment of the Italian Consiglio di Stato would not be very relevant because of the significant differences among different categories of cases.
Some cases, considered of great importance for their impact on the national economy (such as public procurements, disputes about decisions of the Antitrust authority or of other independent authorities, expropriations, ect.) have, according to the law, a faster procedure.
For example, in the field of public procurements, the average time regarding disputes about admissions or exclusions of an enterprise to a public tender is the following:
|Consiglio di Stato Admissions or exclusions to public tenders (ex. Art. 120 co. 2 bis c.p.a.)
For disputes on public procurements in general, except those of the previous table, the average time is the following:
|Consiglio di Stato Public procurements (ex. Art. 120 c.p.a.)
It is also to take into consideration that the Italian Consiglio di Stato is the organ of second and last instance and no filter is provided for lodging an appeal with it.
Moreover, it is to be underlined the great workload of the judges of the Consiglio di Stato in the field of interim measures. All the decisions on interim reliefs taken by the first instance judge (TAR) can be appealed before the Consiglio di Stato. Moreover, after the first instance judgement, the looser, while lodging the appeal, may ask the suspension of effects of the first instance decision to the Consiglio di Stato.
The procedure in this matter, of course, is very fast.
|Consiglio di Stato Interim decisions
We must add to this data the judges who took a leave of absence (14).
Instead, the number of admnistrative judges should be, according to the organiramme, 517.
 These data do not consider the decisions of “perenzione”, which means the decisions taken by presidential decree to declare a claim extinguished for prolonged inactivity of the claimant.
 All the following data refer to the litigation sections of the Consiglio di Stato.
 A special procedure for such cases has been introduced by a recent law, entered into force in April 2016.
© AIHJA - IASAJ Copyright