Royal Decree No. 1611 of 30 October 1933
The first thirty years of the twentieth century
In the first thirty years of the twentieth century there was a progressive "broadening of the horizons" of the tasks of the tax lawyer. This phenomenon passed first of all through the extension of the patronage to different bodies of the State (law no. 485 of July 14, 1907 and Royal Decree no. 1303 of November 24, 1913), also due to the elaboration by the doctrine of the concept of "person public juridical ", as well as to agents and employees of the State and public juridical persons for facts connected with the service performed (Royal Decree 30 December 1923 n. 2828). Secondly, an ad hoc procedural law was introduced on the subject of territorial jurisdiction, destined to become one of the cornerstones of the defense of the State in court, as it established the so-called "tax forum": for cases in which a public administration was a party , the competent judge is that of the place where the office of the Tax Attorney is located in the district of which the judge who would be competent according to the ordinary rules is located (RD 30 December 1923 n. 2828). Among other things, this made it possible to resolve most of the logistical problems that had up to now induced the Avvocatura to continue to consistently make use of the help of the lawyers of the free forum in judgments that were "off-site". Another important innovation concerned the system of notification of judicial documents to public administrations, as the necessity of notification was established, under penalty of nullity detectable ex officio, at the Tax Office of the district where the judge is located (RD 30 December 1923 n. 2828).
The Consolidated Law approved with Royal Decree 30 October 1933, n. 1611
The legislation concerning the Institute, issued during the first years of the century, found coordination in the Consolidated Law approved with Royal Decree of 30 October 1933, n. 1611 : a legal design for the defense of the State and other non-state public bodies was reached, centered on a legal body that was not only interested in the favorable resolution of the dispute, but which was above all directed by a defensive conduct always inspired by the weighting of the ultimate and general interest of the State, assumed to guide and coordinate the action to be carried out from time to time in the specific controversial issue. We recalled the idea that the legislative system for the defense of the State and public bodies should be considered as a complex administrative-organizational phenomenon of substantive law, which cannot therefore be placed only in the procedural dimension; there was a strong and solid relationship between the defended body, the State Advocacy and the State-general organization, a relationship that was a complete administrative system, regulated through the assumption of particular political-legal responsibilities related to the management and coordination of disputes. In essence, the State Attorney's Office was intended as an element of connection and mediation of multiple public bodies to be defended and safeguarded in correlation with the ultimate goal pursued by the State. From this point of view, beyond the practical utility of a professional response adequate to the aforementioned needs, the State Advocacy, as a body that jointly throughout the national territory would provide for the defense and legal advice of all central and peripheral state administrations and of the entities connected to them has meant, constituted an indispensable tool to favor the process of unity of the "rule of law".