SUMMARY: 1. Introduction. – 2. The facts of the case and the definition of “document” under Regulation 1049/2001. – 3. The reasoning of the Court and the principle of good administration. – 4. The Court’s case-law on transparency and access to documents. – 5. The Commission’s transparency practices and legal accountability. – 6. Political accountability: the political impact of the case. – 7. Concluding remarks.

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Il recepimento nell’Unione europea dell’obbligo di garantire l’accesso alla giustizia in materia ambientale ai sensi della Convenzione di Aarhus: brevi cenni sul meccanismo di riesame interno ex regolamento (CE) 1367/2006. – 3. L’ingiustificata esclusione delle decisioni in materia di aiuti di Stato dall’ambito di applicazione del regolamento (CE) 1367/2006 e le possibili soluzioni. – 4. Un meccanismo di riesame ad hoc per le decisioni in materia di aiuti di Stato: similitudini e differenze rispetto al regolamento (CE) 1367/2006. – 5. Una disciplina procedimentale radicata in un atto di soft law: analisi del rapporto che intercorre tra il regolamento (UE) 2025/905 e il Codice delle migliori pratiche. – 6. Segue: le implicazioni della portata precettiva “mediata” del Codice delle migliori pratiche. – 7. Considerazioni conclusive: un meccanismo adeguato alla “specificità della procedura in materia di aiuti di Stato”?

ABSTRACT – By order no. 29569, filed on 18 November 2024, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation once again clarified the dynamic nature of the reference made, with regard to the jurisdiction of Italian courts over defendants not domiciled in a Member State of the European Union, by Article 3 (2) of Law No. 218 of 1995 to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, subsequently superseded by Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. 1215/2012. The ruling presents several points of interest, firstly in its clarification of the scope of the referral mechanism established under Italian law, and secondly in its examination of the indemnity relationship within the framework of the EU’s private international law. This paper therefore aims, after reconstructing the factual context from which the order originated, to provide an analysis of the aforementioned aspects, with the objective of offering some critical remarks.