The analysis focused on the responsibility of the leaders of companies with public participation, with special attention to the profile of the jurisdiction, recently a significant change of direction by the Court of Cassation.
Setting married by the Supreme Court opened the way for a new strand of case law of the courts accounts, aiming to extend the jurisdiction of public tax also to investee companies, on the assumption of their supposed subjectivity public due to the nature (public) of the resources entrusted.
Is preferable that the extension of jurisdiction accounting companies can not participate regardless of recurrence, in individual cases, a relationship of service between the agent and administration damaged.
From a strictly public tax, which must be observed is the inertia of the instruments of the activation reaction, since the damage is public tax only its origin in acts prejudicial to put in place at the head of society, it is consolidated only later, in Head to the property of the participant (institutional or regional) if and when that body fails, through his representative, to enable these tools to sort reaction that recognizes in its membership.
So, always the interpretation of the overall system, it is possible to hypothesize a direct action by the prosecutor in civil accounting, in the form of social responsibility under art. 2392 bis civil law, time to restoration of assets and therefore to the protection of public participation
