This article examines the jurisdictional and competence rules introduced by Article 17 of Italian Law No. 132 of 2025, which amended Article 9 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure to grant the tribunale (court of first instance) exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning the functioning of artificial intelligence systems. The authors begin by defining the scope of "AI system functioning" in light of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), arguing that the new provision covers all disputes arising from violations of the protection obligations imposed on providers, deployers, and other actors within the AI value chain, whenever such violations infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. On the question of jurisdiction, the article contends that ordinary courts hold general competence over AI-related disputes — even against public authorities — particularly where the non-discrimination principle is at stake. Algorithmic bias is identified as a growing source of such violations, and the ordinary judge is shown to possess broad remedial powers in this domain, including the power to order the removal of discriminatory regulatory measures, concurrently with the administrative court's annulment jurisdiction. The article then addresses the coordination between the general tribunal's competence and that of the specialized business courts (sezioni specializzate in materia di impresa), as envisaged by the legislative delegation under Article 16 of Law 132/2025. The authors propose a functional allocation: specialized sections would handle disputes between businesses concerning AI training data and algorithms, while the ordinary tribunal retains exclusive competence whenever the core issue concerns the protection of individual subjective rights. Where connected claims straddle both regimes within the same court, the rules on joinder (Articles 273–274 c.p.c.) apply rather than competence rules proper, following the 2019 Sezioni Unite ruling (No. 19882). Finally, the article analyses the interplay with existing special competence rules on personal data protection, anti-discrimination proceedings, and consumer disputes. While subject-matter competence converges uniformly on the tribunale, conflicts of territorial jurisdiction may arise in cases of connected claims. Drawing on established case law, the authors conclude that the consumer forum prevails in such conflicts on account of its greater flexibility in favour of the weaker party, while the special procedural rules applicable to discrimination and data protection claims continue to govern the conduct of proceedings before whichever court is territorially competent.
Barletta, A., La competenza del tribunale per le cause in materia di funzionamento dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale, <<JUDICIUM>>, 2026; 2026 (aprile): N/A-N/A [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/340591]
La competenza del tribunale per le cause in materia di funzionamento dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale
Barletta, AntoninoPrimo
2026
Abstract
This article examines the jurisdictional and competence rules introduced by Article 17 of Italian Law No. 132 of 2025, which amended Article 9 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure to grant the tribunale (court of first instance) exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning the functioning of artificial intelligence systems. The authors begin by defining the scope of "AI system functioning" in light of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), arguing that the new provision covers all disputes arising from violations of the protection obligations imposed on providers, deployers, and other actors within the AI value chain, whenever such violations infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. On the question of jurisdiction, the article contends that ordinary courts hold general competence over AI-related disputes — even against public authorities — particularly where the non-discrimination principle is at stake. Algorithmic bias is identified as a growing source of such violations, and the ordinary judge is shown to possess broad remedial powers in this domain, including the power to order the removal of discriminatory regulatory measures, concurrently with the administrative court's annulment jurisdiction. The article then addresses the coordination between the general tribunal's competence and that of the specialized business courts (sezioni specializzate in materia di impresa), as envisaged by the legislative delegation under Article 16 of Law 132/2025. The authors propose a functional allocation: specialized sections would handle disputes between businesses concerning AI training data and algorithms, while the ordinary tribunal retains exclusive competence whenever the core issue concerns the protection of individual subjective rights. Where connected claims straddle both regimes within the same court, the rules on joinder (Articles 273–274 c.p.c.) apply rather than competence rules proper, following the 2019 Sezioni Unite ruling (No. 19882). Finally, the article analyses the interplay with existing special competence rules on personal data protection, anti-discrimination proceedings, and consumer disputes. While subject-matter competence converges uniformly on the tribunale, conflicts of territorial jurisdiction may arise in cases of connected claims. Drawing on established case law, the authors conclude that the consumer forum prevails in such conflicts on account of its greater flexibility in favour of the weaker party, while the special procedural rules applicable to discrimination and data protection claims continue to govern the conduct of proceedings before whichever court is territorially competent.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
