N. REG.DEC 4522/08.
N. 140 REG: RIC. YEAR 2007
N. 140 REG: RIC. YEAR 2007
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Council of State in the courts, the Fifth Chamber
gives the following
gives the following
DECISION
on appeal No 140/2007, brought by Garbellini srl, legal representative, represented and defended by Franco Ferru and address for service at the Chambers of. Maria Teresa Barbantini, in Rome, Viale Giulio Cesare, No 14.
AGAINST
the town of Occhiobello, in the person of the mayor in office, represented and advised by Prof. Mario Bertolissi Lawyers, Hamlet Cattarin and Andrea Manzi and address for service in the office of the latter, in Rome, Via Confalonieri No 5.
AND AGAINST
of ACFT and AMI SpA - Mobility Agency Plant Ferarri, not in court.
for the reform of the Judgement of the Court Regional Administrative Veneto, Section One, July 10, 2006 No 1979.
Since the action with its annexes;
Since the entry of appearance in court of the respondent party;
examine the drafts submitted by the parties in support of their defenses;
Taking all of the pleadings;
Speaker at the public hearing on 15 April 2008, Councillor Mark Lipari;
Barbantini heard the lawyers, and Manzi Bartolissi as record of the hearing;
held and considered in fact and in law the following: FACT
Since the action with its annexes;
Since the entry of appearance in court of the respondent party;
examine the drafts submitted by the parties in support of their defenses;
Taking all of the pleadings;
Speaker at the public hearing on 15 April 2008, Councillor Mark Lipari;
Barbantini heard the lawyers, and Manzi Bartolissi as record of the hearing;
held and considered in fact and in law the following: FACT
The decision under appeal as inadmissible the action brought by the appellant, for the annulment of the resolution of the Board City of Occhiobello No 32, March 30, 2006, the resolution of the Town Council No 94, May 30, 2006, determining the responsible Administrative Area No 20, May 31, 2006.
The appellant challenges the imposition of inadmissibility and repeats the criticisms are not considered by the court. The town stands to appeal, while other parties have not made in court.
The appellant challenges the imposition of inadmissibility and repeats the criticisms are not considered by the court. The town stands to appeal, while other parties have not made in court.
LAW
The appellant company, the plaintiff in the first instance, is dell'autolinea foster interregional Castelmassa (RO) - Ferrara, "which is also, seamlessly, the complex formed by the urban capital of the municipality of Occhiobello and the village of Santa Mary Magdalene. In that capacity, has challenged the action taken by the City of Occhiobello indicated in fiction, with appeal notified June 15, 2006.
The appellant challenges the imposition of inadmissibility of the appeal, arguing, first, that the contested measures are null and void under Article 21-f of Law 241/1990, for lack of the object. Therefore, the application proposal is not subject to decadenziale period of sixty days referred only to actions seeking annulment of the contested measures.
a matter of the appellant, the three contested acts "have the extension and / or 'invitations to tender of public transport "Add" never came to be neither legally nor now. "
In support of its argument, the appellant company relies on the regional legal framework, which provides that" additional transport services "should be identified by acts of regional planning in compliance with certain substantive.
Therefore, according to the appellant, in the absence of the required regional acts, the contested measures are lacking the necessary object.
The argument of the appellant is not acceptable.
Article 21 of Law n-f . 241/1990, introduced by Law No 15/2005, consolidated the conceptual category of administrative decision null and void.
The rule states, in summary, the hypothesis of nullity, including in cases of a lack of essential provisions.
In the absence of an explicit legislative statement of the essential elements of the measure, it is possible to develop an interpretive reading of the provision, modeled on the concepts of substantive civil branch, concerning contracts and legal transactions.
In this perspective, then, is to correct the general approach followed by the appellant, that the object of the measure is one of the essential elements of the act and its possible absence determines the invalidity of the measure.
Nor does the object the administrative order is explicitly defined by law. Even in civil law perspective, then, the general category of the object of the contract is not specified in the legislative and, by interpretation, it is outlined very different theoretical perspectives.
Without analyzing in detail the various theses proposed, it is preferable to the review, followed by the prevailing case law, that the object indicates the portion of the legal and material reality on which the act is intended to affect.
Therefore, in this case, the application made by the company should be classified as a deductible item to the lack of measures claims.
These clearly indicate their reference objects in the service of local, qualified as an addition. The lack of any substantial basis, represented, in the opinion of the appellant, the identification within the framework of regional planning, would, if proved, the illegality of the acts for violation of the law (to assert the ordinary deadline decadenziale) and not the invalidity of the measures for alleged failure to object
their second plea, the appellant submits that the Board resolution No. 32/1996 "is divided into two events: an actual and a merely intentional provvedimentale e/o di direttiva interna".
La parte provvedimentale riguarderebbe la conferma del servizio di trasporto pubblico urbano. Viceversa, la parte meramente programmatica si riferirebbe alla decisione riguardante l’indizione della gara per l’affidamento del servizio.
La determinazione provvedimentale riguardante la gara si concentra, invece, nella delibera della giunta municipale n. 94/2006, la quale determina i contenuti e i requisiti specifici della gara.
Pertanto, l’eventuale tardività dell’impugnazione della deliberazione consiliare n. 32/2006 non inciderebbe sulla tempestività del ricorso proposto contro la delibera di Giunta n. 94/2006. Quest’ultima non potrebbe essere qualificata come atto meramente esecutivo, considerando la sua autonoma valenza provvedimentale.
Il motivo è infondato.
La delibera di giunta n. 94/2006 e la determinazione dirigenziale n. 20/2006 contengono nuovi effetti provvedimentali, i quali non sono riconducibili alla mera esecuzione della deliberazione consiliare, ma risultano riferiti alle modalità di svolgimento della gara.
Tuttavia, va considerato che le censure proposte dall’appellante riguardano, esplicitamente, la sola decisione dell’amministrazione comunale di istituire un servizio di trasporto pubblico in una tratta interessata dall’attività della società interessata.
Pertanto, la lesione lamentata si riferisce, indiscutibilmente, alla prima parte ("provvedimentale") della delibera consiliare impugnata.
In definitiva, quindi, l’appello deve essere respinto, con la conferma della pronuncia di irricevibilità del ricorso proposto in primo grado.
Le spese possono essere compensate.
The appellant challenges the imposition of inadmissibility of the appeal, arguing, first, that the contested measures are null and void under Article 21-f of Law 241/1990, for lack of the object. Therefore, the application proposal is not subject to decadenziale period of sixty days referred only to actions seeking annulment of the contested measures.
a matter of the appellant, the three contested acts "have the extension and / or 'invitations to tender of public transport "Add" never came to be neither legally nor now. "
In support of its argument, the appellant company relies on the regional legal framework, which provides that" additional transport services "should be identified by acts of regional planning in compliance with certain substantive.
Therefore, according to the appellant, in the absence of the required regional acts, the contested measures are lacking the necessary object.
The argument of the appellant is not acceptable.
Article 21 of Law n-f . 241/1990, introduced by Law No 15/2005, consolidated the conceptual category of administrative decision null and void.
The rule states, in summary, the hypothesis of nullity, including in cases of a lack of essential provisions.
In the absence of an explicit legislative statement of the essential elements of the measure, it is possible to develop an interpretive reading of the provision, modeled on the concepts of substantive civil branch, concerning contracts and legal transactions.
In this perspective, then, is to correct the general approach followed by the appellant, that the object of the measure is one of the essential elements of the act and its possible absence determines the invalidity of the measure.
Nor does the object the administrative order is explicitly defined by law. Even in civil law perspective, then, the general category of the object of the contract is not specified in the legislative and, by interpretation, it is outlined very different theoretical perspectives.
Without analyzing in detail the various theses proposed, it is preferable to the review, followed by the prevailing case law, that the object indicates the portion of the legal and material reality on which the act is intended to affect.
Therefore, in this case, the application made by the company should be classified as a deductible item to the lack of measures claims.
These clearly indicate their reference objects in the service of local, qualified as an addition. The lack of any substantial basis, represented, in the opinion of the appellant, the identification within the framework of regional planning, would, if proved, the illegality of the acts for violation of the law (to assert the ordinary deadline decadenziale) and not the invalidity of the measures for alleged failure to object
their second plea, the appellant submits that the Board resolution No. 32/1996 "is divided into two events: an actual and a merely intentional provvedimentale e/o di direttiva interna".
La parte provvedimentale riguarderebbe la conferma del servizio di trasporto pubblico urbano. Viceversa, la parte meramente programmatica si riferirebbe alla decisione riguardante l’indizione della gara per l’affidamento del servizio.
La determinazione provvedimentale riguardante la gara si concentra, invece, nella delibera della giunta municipale n. 94/2006, la quale determina i contenuti e i requisiti specifici della gara.
Pertanto, l’eventuale tardività dell’impugnazione della deliberazione consiliare n. 32/2006 non inciderebbe sulla tempestività del ricorso proposto contro la delibera di Giunta n. 94/2006. Quest’ultima non potrebbe essere qualificata come atto meramente esecutivo, considerando la sua autonoma valenza provvedimentale.
Il motivo è infondato.
La delibera di giunta n. 94/2006 e la determinazione dirigenziale n. 20/2006 contengono nuovi effetti provvedimentali, i quali non sono riconducibili alla mera esecuzione della deliberazione consiliare, ma risultano riferiti alle modalità di svolgimento della gara.
Tuttavia, va considerato che le censure proposte dall’appellante riguardano, esplicitamente, la sola decisione dell’amministrazione comunale di istituire un servizio di trasporto pubblico in una tratta interessata dall’attività della società interessata.
Pertanto, la lesione lamentata si riferisce, indiscutibilmente, alla prima parte ("provvedimentale") della delibera consiliare impugnata.
In definitiva, quindi, l’appello deve essere respinto, con la conferma della pronuncia di irricevibilità del ricorso proposto in primo grado.
Le spese possono essere compensate.
Per Questi Motivi
Il Consiglio di Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Sezione Quinta, respinge l'appello, compensando le spese;
ordina che la presente decisione sia eseguita dall'Autorità amministrativa.
Così deciso in Roma nella camera di consiglio del 15 aprile 2008, con l'intervento dei signori:
Emidio Frascione - Presidente
Claudio Marchitiello - Consigliere
Marco Lipari - Consigliere Estensore
Aniello Cerreto - Consigliere
Vito Poli - Consigliere
L'estensore Il Presidente
f.to Marco Lipari f.to Emidio Frascione
DEPOSITATA IN SEGRETERIA 19/09/2008.
ordina che la presente decisione sia eseguita dall'Autorità amministrativa.
Così deciso in Roma nella camera di consiglio del 15 aprile 2008, con l'intervento dei signori:
Emidio Frascione - Presidente
Claudio Marchitiello - Consigliere
Marco Lipari - Consigliere Estensore
Aniello Cerreto - Consigliere
Vito Poli - Consigliere
L'estensore Il Presidente
f.to Marco Lipari f.to Emidio Frascione
DEPOSITATA IN SEGRETERIA 19/09/2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment