At present, there is no clarity as regards as the competent jurisdiction for disputes on school support services for people with disabilities. The most recent approach of the United Sections of the Court of Cassation breaks up judicial protection in two: the administrative judge shall decide disputes relating to the phase prior to the formalization of the individualized educational plan, whereas the ordinary court shall decide disputes arising after the adoption of the plan. The criterion of distinguishing is based on the type of the activity carried out by the administration, since the Cassation considers that there is no discretionary power after the enactment of the plan. However, not all administrative judges follow this criterion, embracing the different opinion that devolves any disputes in public services to the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative courts. This reasoning is agreeable for different substantial and procedural grounds. First, the discretionary power of the administration does persist even once the plan has been adopted; second, there is full compatibility between administrative power and fundamental rights; finally, the general principles of concentration and effectiveness of judicial protection must be observed.

Sui molteplici criteri di riparto della giurisdizione in materia di servizi di sostegno scolastico alle persone con disabilità / M. Ramajoli. - In: DIRITTO PROCESSUALE AMMINISTRATIVO. - ISSN 0393-1315. - 38:2(2020), pp. 275-292.

Sui molteplici criteri di riparto della giurisdizione in materia di servizi di sostegno scolastico alle persone con disabilità

M. Ramajoli
2020

Abstract

At present, there is no clarity as regards as the competent jurisdiction for disputes on school support services for people with disabilities. The most recent approach of the United Sections of the Court of Cassation breaks up judicial protection in two: the administrative judge shall decide disputes relating to the phase prior to the formalization of the individualized educational plan, whereas the ordinary court shall decide disputes arising after the adoption of the plan. The criterion of distinguishing is based on the type of the activity carried out by the administration, since the Cassation considers that there is no discretionary power after the enactment of the plan. However, not all administrative judges follow this criterion, embracing the different opinion that devolves any disputes in public services to the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative courts. This reasoning is agreeable for different substantial and procedural grounds. First, the discretionary power of the administration does persist even once the plan has been adopted; second, there is full compatibility between administrative power and fundamental rights; finally, the general principles of concentration and effectiveness of judicial protection must be observed.
criteria of allocation of jurisdiction - discretionary activity - exclusive jurisdiction - fundamental rights
Settore IUS/10 - Diritto Amministrativo
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ramajoli riparto disabilità.pdf

embargo fino al 01/12/2021

Tipologia: Post-print, accepted manuscript ecc. (versione accettata dall'editore)
Dimensione 485.49 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
485.49 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/765523
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact