Public contracts

The present study aims to retrace the digitalization process of the public procurement starting from the previsions of the legislative decree n. 50/2016 to Public Procurement digitalization decree n. 148/2021, embraced with over four years delay compared with the previsions. For this purpose, we face the extremely wide jurisprudential production in matter of telematic tendering procedures. Namely, the decree is inserted in a context in which the jurisprudence has extensively addressed the issues related to the digitalization of the tendering procedures, attempting to make this heavy jurisprudential stratification, not devoid of inconsistencies and relevant developments.

Article 80, paragraph 5, letter c) of the Code of Public Contracts provides for exclusion from participation of economic operators who have been convicted of serious professional misconduct affecting their integrity or reliability. The rationale for this prevision is «the need», of the public administration, «to ensure the reliability of those who propose themselves as contractors» (Council of State, decision no.1412, of April 11, 2016) through an evaluation process to determine their integrity. This provision has been the subject of a recent decision by the Regional Administrative Court for Sardinia: no. 646 of October 3, 2022. That decision focused on the discretion left by this provision – at the point where it provides for the exclusion of the economic operator for serious professional misconduct on the basis of any means considered by the Contracting Authority as adequate. The decision has clarified how this evaluation presupposes a specific reasoning based on two levels: one objective and one relative, which considers both the gravity of the professional misconduct committed by the economic operator, and the prejudice that it may cause to the specific contract in question.

In the current emergency situation, national legislators attempt to manage the invariance in public procurements by means of analytical rules of mechanical application. The consequent regulatory chaos (in a continuous – almost inconsistent – reformulation of the rules) makes it preferable to manage the emergency through undetermined legal concepts (good faith, first of all), which better perform the homeostatic function in the legal system.

The following paper shows how the introduction of electronic instruments and databases for contracting authorities, like the e-procurement portal “Tutto Gare” used by Brescia Infrastrutture S.r.l., has brought a substantial simplification in public commitment procedures, allowing for the adjudication of public tenders even during the lockdown period caused by the COVID–19 pandemic. However, the path to digitalisation of tendering procedures hasn’t been concluded yet. The hope is that in the aftermath of the pandemic all the information concerning economic operators and tendering procedures could be found on uniform and centralized databases (like the so-called Economic Operator’s Dossier ex art. 81, c. 4, d.lgs. n. 50/2016), which will help both the contracting authorities in the selection of the contractor as well as the economic operators themselves.

The paper aims to reflect on legislator’s vain and repeated attempts to simplify the regulations and procedures concerning public contracts. The attempts have mainly been through emergency responses which often create uncertainty and difficulties in interpreting and applying rules. The author urges the pursuit of legal stability and a true simplification through the development of discretionary powers, professionalism and responsibility on the part of the contracting authorities.

This contribution outlines the provision of preliminary assistance in administration as seen in recent legislation and case law. First, the key elements of preliminary assistance are described. Then, the analysis addresses the jurisprudential orientations related to its application in the context of digitalized administrative action. The authors propose that, on the one hand, preliminary assistance is an essential means of overcoming technological problems and the digital divide between citizens and government administration, and, on the other, it is a tool for implementing the principles of simplification by helping to reduce the burdens on private individuals who participate in the administrative procedure.

By judgment No. 2309 of 17 March 2021, the Council of State has further confirmed – overcoming the idea that the term for the conclusion of ARERA’s sanctioning procedure is merely ordinary – the peremptory nature of such term, therefore its overrun affects the challenged sanctioning measure, implying that it is unlawful. Indeed, the provision of a procedural time frame, to be determined by the Authority on a case-by-case basis, shall ensure that the time of sanction ascertainment is close to that of its punishment, thus meaning that the undue time lapse of the administrative action implies the unlawfulness of the sanction measure.

The analysis stems from the judgment n. 17 (and its “twin” n. 18) of the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State concerning the future of state-owned maritime concessions used for touristic and recreational purposes. Starting from the confirmation of the illegitimacy of the automatic extension, as contrary to both Article 49 TFEU and Article 12 of the Services Directive, the key focus of attention is on highlighting how the administrative judges define the cross-border interest of state concessions as necessarily existing and not to be established because of the context. This implies a reflection on the future activity of public administrations called to set up the procedures for the award of expiring concessions, according to the forthcoming indications of the legislator. The judgment itself attempts to create the law: not only does it postpone the effects until the end of 2023, but it offers the legislator clear and established criteria for the reform of the sector.

The Council of State confirmed the illegality of the resolution of the Municipality of Seregno which approved a complex corporate integration project between its subsidiary and A2A S.p.A.. The judgment is particularly interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it is confirmed that a public tender must be carried out in circumstances such as those of the present case, and secondly, it remains to be seen what consequences the ruling will have on the operation.

With the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union that is going to be analyzed herein, the European judge focuses on the primary purpose of investigating the possibility of considering the Italian F.I.G.C. (Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio) a body governed by public law. In this respect, the comment aims at summarizing the main issues concerning the mentioned body, especially with regard to the conditions provided for by law in order to recognize such public entity. At the end of the note some critical considerations will be made about the decision.