Monica Roccaforte Portfolio

Supreme Court, Sec. United Civil - Judgement No. 1 July 2009 15377

Court Cassazione, Sez. Unite Civili - sentenza 1 luglio 2009 n. 15377 - Pres. Carbone, Rel. Segreto - Istituto David Chiossone c. AUSL 3 Genova - (dichiara la giurisdizione del giudice ordinario).

SVOLGIMENTO DEL PROCESSO

Con decreto ingiuntivo n. 274/2 001 del tribunale di Genova, (omissis), paziente dismesso dall'ospedale psichiatrico e degente presso l'istituto David Chiossone, ente morale, convenzionato, veniva condannato al pagamento in favore di detto istituto della ed. quota alberghiera della retta di degenza dal 1998 al 2000 e con successivo decreto ingiuntivo n. 1744/2002 l'Ausl 3 Genova e lo stesso venivano condannati in solido al pagamento in favore dell'Istituto di that share the line of hotel stay from 2001 to 2002. The proposed ordered separate oppositions, then reunited. The Ausi raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Genoa

withdrew the injunction and ordered an injunction requiring the payment of various sums in favor of the applicant institution.

On appeal and cross appeal of the institute injunction, the Court of Appeal of Genoa, in sentence no 145, 16.2.2007, declared the lack of jurisdiction of the needle, as the claim brought against the Local Health Unit, and partially upheld the appeal of cross Nizzi, condemning them to pay a lesser sum in respect of 'institution.

believed the territorial court that in this case, as to the action brought against the Local Health Unit, the jurisdiction belonged to the administrative court, as it turned in assumptions about the interpretation of regional deliberations pertaining to the NHS or private, a former hospital, and the. share of hotel stay, admission to the relevant provisions of the Local Health Unit in the nearby structure.

against this ruling has brought the institution for judicial actor, divided into four reasons. Resists the defense AUSL 3 Genovese. Both parties submitted pleadings.

GROUNDS

1. By the first plea, the applicant alleges infringement of Article. 5 c. 2, 1. No 1034/1971, Articles. 5:37 Code, Articles. 26,44,69 1. No 833/1978 of DL 502/1992, 1. No 662/1996, 1. No 449/1997, d. lgs. No 109/1998. The applicant maintains that the jurisdiction belongs to the AG, that the amount of the share of hospital stay required is determined by the Health Service; that this cost is borne by the NHS, leaving the law to the regions to determine the extent of participation in patient, ali'AUSL as reimbursement to be paid, in which the ratio remains foreign institute (1. r. Liguria No 30/1998).

2.1. The reason is well founded and should, consequently, declared the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

outset to be rejected the plea of \u200b\u200binadmissibility of plea: This fact presents a question of law with the wording of Article. 366 bis cpc

must first be said that this case must be decided on the basis of the more limited provision of Legislative Decree no. 80, 1998, Art. 33, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court, No 2 04/2004, having repeatedly held that the Supreme Court (Cass. 2002/6487, 2004/20635, 2005/1362 and 2006/3370) that the principle enshrined in Article. 5 Code, that the jurisdiction (and expertise) are determined by the law in force at the time of application, does not operate in cases in which this law was later declared illegal, because the rulings of unconstitutionality involve the deletion ab origine della norma che, pertanto, non può più essere applicata neppure ai limitati fini di cui all'art. 5 c.p.c.

2.2. Va osservato che l'assetto normativo derivante dalla L. 13 maggio 1978, n. 180, che ha modificato radicalmente il sistema di custodia e cura degli alienati, con la soppressione dei manicomi, e dalla L. 23 dicembre 1978, n. 833, che ha introdotto il Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, attribuendo agli alienati lo stesso trattamento riservato ai soggetti affetti da altre patologie, comporta l'inapplicabilità della L. 14 febbraio 1904, n. 36, art. 7, - che devolveva al Consiglio di Stato le controversie aventi ad oggetto le relative spese in cui fossero interessati lo Stato, più Province o Comuni o istituzioni public charities forced to support the insane belonging to different provinces - and RD June 26, 1924, No 1054, Art. 29, No 5, which provided for exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of the administrative courts, with the result that, following the declaration of unconstitutionality (Corte cost. No 204/2004) of Legislative Decree no. March 31, 1998, No 80, Art. 33, as amended by Law July 21, 2000, No 205, Art. 7, which attributed to the administrative court, regardless of the subjective nature of the situations involved, disputes regarding the activities and performance of all kinds, including protective sheet, made in the performance of public services, including those made under del Servizio Sanitario, spetta al giudice ordinario la giurisdizione in ordine alla domanda di pagamento del corrispettivo per il servizio di degenza reso in favore di un privato, proposta da una casa di cura privata nei confronti di una unità sanitaria locale, che non implichi 1'interpretazione di una convenzione o di un atto o un provvedimento amministrativo (Cass. S.U. 30.7.2008, n. 20586; Cass. S.U. , 15/07/2005, n. 14986; Cass. S.U. 26.7.2006, n. 17000).

3.1.Sennonché, quanto a quest'ultima ipotesi, va osservato che la Corte costituzionale, con la predetta sentenza n. 204/2004, ha statuito che, a prescindere dall'ipotesi di concessione di servizi, già contemplata dalla L. n. 1034 del 1971, art. 5, la giurisdizione exclusive of the administrative courts on public services survive only in cases "relating to measures taken by the government or the operator of a public service in a proceeding governed by L. August 7, 1990, No. 241," or relating to the award of a public service and the supervision and control over the operator, and supervision in specific areas expressly indicated. First, it should be noted that the term "provision" is to be understood in the strict sense, ie, in accordance with the concept that is derived from tradition and jurisprudence of this Court - only on administrative acts are discretionary, and authoritative constituent, being other than purely declarative.

It must be emphasized that the power of the administration to alter the position of the subjective situations is a consequence of the particular effectiveness of the act, and that our constitutional system does not provide for any administration. As noted by the Constitutional Court itself, measures must be treated where 1'amministrazione has exercised the option to adopt negotiating tools in place measures (Law No. 241 of 1990, Art. 11).

3.2.Quanto area of \u200b\u200bjurisdiction, which was redesigned by case constitutional in the current system, the reference of the dispute by the decision means that to be attracted to the jurisdiction of administrative courts, the trial must be covered by the measure in itself considered. And because it's exclusive jurisdiction, and therefore extended to disputes over individual rights, its scope can not, of course, coincide with that of the jurisdiction of legitimacy, in which the personal position of calling for protection is a legitimate concern.

The rule, in the judge's reading of the laws, refers, therefore, in addition to cases of injury to legitimate interests, even in cases where, for various reasons, the administrative act can be detrimental to individual rights, and as in . lack of power in practice and in the lesion fundamental rights, in relation to which, according to the Court's case does not occur - in the context of enhanced protection arising directly from the Constitution - ed. breakdown of law (Cass. ON 04/07/2006, No. 15216).

is obvious, therefore, that the afferent of the dispute to a measure which is required to implant the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative courts according to reread the Constitutional Court, does not mean that it should be subject to review, in the sense that the protection of subjective right, headed by that court, be separated from any question of legality of the measure.

3.3.Applicando these rules to this case, unrelated The report relied in court on an exercise of authoritative powers of the administration, in the sense explained above, has ruled out the existence of the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative court, even if he did not want to share the approach that the balance of assets for the 'ex definition "excluded from the area in which the authoritative power of the PA.

fact, demand for payment of the hotel portion of the fees proposed by the Institute of hospitalization, in addition to not contain any trade union acts provvedimentali not pertains to reports made or amended by acts of this kind, the plaintiff had requested the consideration obligation to care for nature, a ricollegantesi conditions foreshadowed by law.

In this case, the legislative framework (LN 833/1978, LN 180/1978 art. 2 et seq.) Explicitly configure the medical care of people as objects of law, without the creation of this right is conditioned to the adoption of discretionary acts.

The sphere of discretion on the other hand, the preparation of welfare programs, which are established with the specific types of interventions and resources for food 'implementation of these programs, acts which are the responsibility of regional and, as noted above, not directly related to the establishment of the relationship (Cass. ON 18.10.2005, No. 20114).

Therefore, the dispute Identification of the person obligated to pay the hotel portion of the line of hospital stay (1. r. Liguria 9.9.1998, n. 30 and subsequent resolutions regional implementation) and then on the passive ownership of the report, is not sufficient basis for attributing cognition the administrative court in this case the absence of an administrative act (in the sense explained above), whose legitimacy is discussed and the deduction of an exercise of discretion by the Administration (Cass. on n. 17928/2008, 20586/2008 ).

result it must be affirmed the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, in relation to the application made by the institution actor.

4.Con the second ground of appeal, the appellant lamenta l'erronea ed illegittima estensione della giurisdizione dell'Ago ai rapporti tra esso istituto ed in violazione dell'art. 5 l. 1034/1971, degli artt. 5 e 37 c.p.c. e dei principi emergenti dalla legge 833/1971; art. 26/44 e 69 del d.l. 502/1992, in relazione all'art. 360 n. l e 3 c.p.c. Ritiene il ricorrente che invece per tale rapporto andava affermata la giurisdizione del Giudice amministrativo, in quanto il (omissis) assumeva che egli non doveva partecipare alla spesa, alla quale era tenuta la AUSL. 5.1. Il motivo è inammissibile per essersi formato il giudicato implicito in merito alla giurisdizione dell'AGO, quanto al rapporto tra l'Istituto attore ed il

Va, anzitutto, osservato che queste S.U. con recente sentenza 9.10.2008, n. 24883, have held that in each process are identified and not confused two separate items of the proceedings, one (case) concerning the existence or otherwise of duty - the power of the court to resolve the merits of the case, and the other (major) on the merits or otherwise of the application.

Given the obligation of the court to establish the existence of their jurisdiction before proceeding to 'review the merits or other matter to it later, can legitimately be assumed that any pronouncements about it implicitly contains the logic which is sull'antecedente conditions, namely the existence of jurisdiction, in the absence of which could not be adopted. Therefore can not be said that in the absence of a specific ruling, the question of jurisdiction (in each case) has not been addressed. If the court decided the merits, under the combined provisions of Articles. 276, c. 2, and 37 Code of Civil Procedure (which require the verification of potestas iudicandi office) should be considered to have already decided in the affirmative to the question of jurisdiction. Ultimately, according to said orientation of these recent SU, which is shared here, and reiterated the decision on the merits implies a decision on jurisdiction and, therefore, if the parties do not contest the ruling or the contest, but has not challenged the jurisdiction, are engaged in conduct incompatible with the will to plead the defect and, therefore, the phenomenon occurs dell'acquiescenza incompatibility with the resulting foreclosures enshrined in Articles. 329, c. Code and Article 2. 324 cpc

5.2.Nella case the court had pronounced on the merits, as to the action brought against the Institute Nizzi. On the implicit ruling on the jurisdiction of ordinary courts to the report, no one has appealed, so the point you deemed the implicit format.

6. By its third plea, the applicant alleges the violation of Articles. 112-277 - 342-346-352-359 Code, in relation to art. No 360 3 Code of Civil Procedure and the motivation to defect at issue occurred, pursuant to art. 360 No The reason cpc 5 concludes with the following question of law: "If the appellate court must pronounce on all questions raised by the appellant in the conclusions of the appellate court suggested again in art. Cpc 352, transcribed in the sentence. "

7.1. The reason is inadmissible because the question of law set out above does not satisfy the requirements of Article. 366 bis cpc.

fact, the question of law with which to end a sentence with each of the grounds for rejection which the applicant complained to the Court due to a defect in one or more of the situations covered in the first four paragraphs of Article. 360, first paragraph, no. proc. Civ. must be decisive point

the dispute and can not be defined in the request for a declaration of an abstract statement of principle by the court of review (Cass. 03/08/2007, No. 17108). The wording of the question provided dall1 art. 366-bis. proc. Civ. requires the enunciation by the applicant, a legal principle different from the basic value of the contested measure and therefore as involving a reversal of the decision taken by the court, "court". It is therefore not a permissible ground of appeal which will eventually lead to the exposure of a question merely a repetition of the contents of the standard applied by the trial judge (Court of Cassation, 22.6.2007, n. 14682).

7.2. In this case the question is no di ogni attinenza alla fattispecie concreta, non indicando quali siano le domande su cui il giudice di appello non si sarebbe pronunziato.

7.3. Quanto all'assunto vizio motivazionale, poiché esso consiste secondo il ricorrente "nella contraddittorietà della motivazione della corte di appello nell'omettere ogni statuizione sul merito di tale parte di appello pur riconosciuto dalla corte di appello espressamente proposto" va osservato che esso non integra un vizio motivazionale di cui all'art. 360 n. 5, e cioè relativo alla ricostruzione dei fatti, ma un pretesa contraddittoria motivazione giuridica, che, quindi, va sussunta nel vizio di cui all'art. 360 n. 3 c.p.c. (relativamente al quale manca il quesito di diritto, come sopra detto).

Infatti il vizio di motivazione riconducibile all'ipotesi di cui all'art. 360 c.p.c., n. 5 può concernere esclusivamente l'accertamento e la valutazione dei fatti rilevanti ai fini della decisione della controversia, non anche l'interpretazione o l'applicazione di norme giuridiche; in questo secondo caso, che invece ricade nella previsione dell'art. 360 c.p.c, n. 3 il vizio di motivazione in diritto non può avere rilievo di per sé, in quanto esso, se il giudice del merito ha deciso correttamente le questioni di diritto sottoposte al suo esame, supportando la sua decisione con argomentazioni inadeguate, illogiche o contraddittorie, o senza dare alcuna motivazione, può dar luogo alla correzione della motivazione da parte della Corte di Cassazione (Cass. 06/08/2003, n.11883).

8 - Con il quarto motivo di ricorso il ricorrente lamenta la violazione e falsa applicazione degli artt. 5-99-100-112-342-343-345- c.p.c e degli artt. 1260, 1264, 1269, 1271 ce in relazione all'art. 360 n. 3 c.p.c, nonché l'omessa, insufficiente e contraddittoria motivazione su un punto controverso a norma dell'art. 360 n. 5 c.p.c.

Il motivo si conclude con il seguente quesito di diritto: "Se la decisione sull'appello incidentale proposto da un appellato deve essere circoscritta nei limiti oggettivi e soggettivi dell'appello incidentale, senza che sia consentito estendere d'ufficio le eccezioni nei confronti dei soggetti cui non sono dirette".

9. The reason is unacceptable to question the inadequacy of the proposed law, based on the above principles. In particular it does not appear to be no reference to the specific case nor what were 1'esatta iuris rule to be applied in place of the one applied by the trial court erred.

As for the alleged defect of motivation, even in this case it is not resolved in a defect related to the reconstruction of the facts, and as such falls within the paradigm of which alI'art. No 360 5 Code, but the legal reasoning. In fact, the applicant relies on contradictory grounds for the appellate court first held that the cross appeal of Nizzi concernesse claim to charge the performance of ODA, and then received the same with partial reduction of the quantum, while asserting that the claims against Aus 1 were precluded by the lack of jurisdiction.

final 10.In be accepted the first plea and declared ineligible for the rest. It should be quashed, in relation to the ground of the decision under appeal and affirmed the jurisdiction of ordinary courts also applied to the claim brought by the plaintiff against the Local Health Unit 3 "Genovese". It should be postponed because, even for the costs of this court of cassation, to another section of the Court of Appeal of Genoa.

PQM

accept the first plea and declared ineligible for the rest. Cash, in relation to the plea accepted the contested decision and states the jurisdiction of ordinary courts also applied to the claim brought by the plaintiff against the AUSL 3 "Genovese". Refer the case, including the costs of this court of cassation, to another section of the Court of Appeal of Genoa.

Decided in Rome, there May 26, 2009.

The cons. east.

President

Filed in the Chancellery on July 1, 2009.

Opening Prayers Sample For A Debut

Review by the "Christian roots", directed by Roberto De Mattei monthly

Introibo ad altare Dei

Elvis Cuneo, Daniele Di Sorco, Raimondo Mameli - Fede&Cultura, Verona 2008, pp. 280, € 25

La Messa tradizionale, comunemente detta di San Pio, il cui uso è stato rivalutato dal Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum "of Pope Benedict XVI (technically the liturgy had never been repealed, but its use had been lost), is of a higher beauty, but it has some objective difficulties, mainly due to long neglect which has been subjected.

then comes this extremely useful manual, written by three young people from studies of sacred music, as well as scholars of literature and theology, also useful as a reality check for many ecclesiastical terms (which is the difference between the pulpit and lectern? What is the role monsignors curia? What are the different vestments?).

The book, which makes use of the preface by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", is presented as a necessary tool for all those - priests and lay people - who wish to resume the use of traditional mass, however, encountering real difficulties in preparing and serving the altar, the Eucharistic celebration. The missal of St. Pius V, in fact, on one side with its structure prevents slips of any kind, for that matter can be confusing to those who are accustomed to follow the Mass according to the "Novus Ordo" not generally celebrated in Latin, but in the language of the place. If you understand, however, the value of each gesture performed by the priest at the altar, far from regarding the development Traditional something away, you will understand better the high significance of the sacrifice that the priest does. For example, the fact - often mentioned by critics of mass Traditional - the celebrant talk back to the faithful, must be read in its original sense, that is directed towards the Blessed Sacrament, transforming the traditional altar (precede by a few steps) in a representation of Golgotha, where he repeats the sacrifice of Christ for all of us. And that is why the consecration, in the ancient rite, is of greater sanctity and allows a better concentration of the faithful (who may "participate" less, but "feel" more).

Il “manuale” di Fede&Cultura contribuisce a comprendere questo rito – e in ciò si affianca ad altre importanti pubblicazione della stessa casa editrice: dal Messalino ordinario (ottimo per seguire la funzione) a quello festivo (necessario per celebrarla), dagli studi sulla messa di Francesco Agnoli e Mons. Klaus Gamber, alla risposta al clero modernista di Francesco Capello, per giungere alla pregevole antologia letteraria curata da Mario Palmaro e Alessandro Gnocchi.

(RC n. 46 - Luglio 2009)

Koleston Perfect Comparison Chart

European Court of Justice, Sec. IV, May 19, 2009, No C-538/07

Directive 92/50/EEC - Article 29, first paragraph - Public services - National legislation does not authorize participation in the same procedure for the award, concurrently, of companies aventi fra loro un rapporto di controllo o d’influenza notevole»

Nel procedimento C 538/07,

avente ad oggetto la domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale proposta alla Corte, ai sensi dell’art. 234 CE, dal Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia con decisione 14 novembre 2007, pervenuta in cancelleria il 3 dicembre 2007, nella causa
Assitur Srl

contro

Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano,

e nei confronti di:

SDA Express Courier SpA,
Poste Italiane SpA,

LA CORTE (Fourth Chamber), composed of

. K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, R. Lapuerta de Silva, by D. E. Juhász (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Malenovský, judges,
: sig. J. Mazák
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator
view the written procedure and further hearing on December 4, 2008,
considering the observations submitted
- for Assitur Srl, by. S. Quadrio,
- for the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Milan, by. M. Bassani;
- the SDA Express Courier SpA, by A. Vallefuoco and V. Vallefuoco;
- the Italian Post SpA, by. A. Fratini;
- the Italian Government, by. IM Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted by. G. Fiengo, State Advocate;
- the Commission of the European Communities, by. D. Kukovec and Mrs D. Recchia, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Advocate General at the hearing on February 10, 2009,

gives the following Judgement

a request for a preliminary ruling concerns the ' interpretation of Article. 29, first paragraph, of Council Directive 18 June 1992, 92/50/EEC on the coordination of procedures for awarding public service contracts (OJ L 209, p. 1). And the general principles of Community law on public procurement.
2 The question arose in proceedings between the Assitur Srl (hereinafter 'the Assitur) and the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Milan, on the compatibility with the provisions and principles above national legislation prohibiting the participation in the same procedure for the award of contract, in a separate and competing companies, among which there is a relationship in which one exercises control or influence over the other remarkable. Legal framework

Community legislation
Article 3. 29 of Directive 92/50, as contained in Chapter 2 of the latter, entitled "Criteria for qualitative selection ', in its first paragraph reads as follows:
" may be excluded from participation in any service contract which :
a) is in a state of bankruptcy, liquidation, receivership, composition with creditors, have suspended business activities or is in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure under national laws and regulations;
b ) is the subject of proceedings for a declaration of bankruptcy, liquidation forced or administered by an arrangement with creditors or of any other similar proceedings under national laws or regulations;
c) has been convicted of an offense concerning his professional conduct by a service provider, with res judicata;
d ) has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authorities [authority];
e) has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions in accordance with the laws of the country in which he is established or that of the authorities [authority];
f) has not fulfilled tax obligations conformemente alle disposizioni legislative del paese dell’amministrazione [aggiudicatrice];
g) si sia reso colpevole di gravi inesattezze nel fornire le informazioni esigibili in applicazione del presente capitolo o non abbia fornito dette informazioni».
4 L’art. 3, n. 4, secondo e terzo comma, della direttiva del Consiglio 14 giugno 1993, 93/37/CEE, che coordina le procedure di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici di lavori (GU L 199, pag. 54), definisce le nozioni di «imprese collegate» e di «influenza dominante» tra imprese. Per quanto riguarda i contratti di concessione di lavori pubblici, esso prevede quanto segue:
«Non si considerano come terzi le imprese che si sono raggruppate per ottenere la concessione né le imprese ad esse collegate.
Per “impresa collegata” s’intende qualsiasi impresa su cui il concessionario può esercitare direttamente o indirettamente un’influenza dominante, o qualsiasi impresa che può esercitare un’influenza dominante [sul concessionario o che, come il concessionario, è soggetta all’influenza dominante] di un’altra impresa per motivi attinenti alla proprietà, alla partecipazione finanziaria o alle norme che disciplinano l’impresa stessa. L’influenza dominante è presunta quando un’impresa direttamente o indirettamente, nei confronti di un’altra impresa:
– detiene la maggioranza del capitale subscribed or
- a majority of the votes attaching to the shares of the company, or
- can appoint more than half the members of the administrative, managerial or supervisory body. " National legislation

5 Directive 92/50 was transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree 17 March 1995, No 157 (ordinary supplement to Official Gazette No 104 of May 6, 1995). This Decree does not include a ban on participation in the same procedure for the award of public service contract between the companies against which there is a relationship of control or are affiliated.
Article 6. 10, paragraph 1 bis of Law February 11, 1994, No 109, Framework Law on Public Works (Gazette No 41 of February 19, 1994, hereinafter 'Law No 109/1994) provides:
"They can not participate in the same competition between undertakings which are them in a relationship of control under Article 2359 of the Civil Code. "
Article 7. 2359 of Italian Civil Code, entitled 'subsidiaries and related companies, as follows:
"Subsidiaries are defined as:
1) companies in which another company holds the majority of the voting power of the ordinary;
2) companies in which another company has enough votes to exercise a dominant influence in the ordinary;
3) companies that are under the dominant influence of another company by virtue of special restrictions with it.
For the purposes of the numbers 1) and 2) of this paragraph the voting of subsidiary companies, trust companies and intermediaries, not the voting rights on behalf of others.
are regarded as affiliated companies in which another company exercises significant influence. The influence is presumed when the ordinary can be exercised almeno un quinto dei voti ovvero un decimo se la società ha azioni quotate in mercati regolamentati».
8 Le procedure di affidamento degli appalti pubblici nei settori dei lavori, dei servizi e delle forniture sono disciplinate attualmente, nel loro insieme, dal decreto legislativo 12 aprile 2006, n. 163 (Supplemento ordinario alla GURI n. 100 del 2 maggio 2006; in prosieguo: il «decreto legislativo n. 163/2006»). L’art. 34, ultimo comma, di tale decreto legislativo così dispone:
«Non possono partecipare alla medesima gara concorrenti che si trovino fra di loro in una delle situazioni di controllo di cui all’articolo 2359 del codice civile. Le stazioni appaltanti escludono altresì dalla gara i concorrenti per i quali accertano che le relative offerte sono imputabili ad un unico centro decisionale, sulla base di univoci elementi».
Causa principale e questione pregiudiziale
9 Con bando di gara del 30 settembre 2003, la Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano ha indetto un pubblico incanto per l’affidamento, in base al criterio del prezzo più basso, del servizio di corriere per il ritiro e la consegna della corrispondenza e di documentazione varia per conto della Camera di Commercio stessa e della sua azienda speciale CedCamera, per un triennio corrispondente agli anni 2004-2006. Questo appalto riguardava un importo pari a EUR 530 000 non comprensivo dell’imposta sul valore aggiunto.
10 In esito all’esame the documentation submitted by the interested parties were allowed to race the SDA Express Courier SpA ('the SDA'), the Italian Post SpA ('the Italian Post Office) el'Assitur.
11 November 12, 2003, Assitur requested exclusion from the tendering procedure of the SDA and the Italian Post Office, because of links between these two companies. 12
inquiry carried out in this regard from the jury found that the entire share capital was held by the SDA Securities SpA, which in turn wholly owned by the Italian Post. However, since the decree 17 March 1995, n. 157, which governed gli appalti di servizi, non prevedeva alcun divieto di partecipazione ad una medesima procedura di aggiudicazione a carico di imprese aventi fra loro un rapporto di controllo, e che la verifica effettuata non aveva messo in luce indizi gravi e concordanti che consentissero di ritenere che i principi di concorrenza e di segretezza delle offerte fossero stati violati nella fattispecie, l’ente appaltante, con determinazione del 2 dicembre 2003, n. 712, ha deciso di aggiudicare l’appalto alla SDA, che aveva presentato l’offerta più bassa.
13 L’Assitur ha chiesto l’annullamento di questa decisione dinanzi al Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia. Essa ha fatto valere che, conformemente all’art. 10, comma 1 bis of Law 109/1994, in its opinion also applies to service contracts in the absence of other specific legislation, the contracting authority would have excluded from the tendering companies were together in a relationship of control under Article 2359 of Italian Civil Code.
14 The national court observes that Article. 10, paragraph 1 bis of Law 109/1994, which specifically governs the procurement of works, establishes a rebuttable presumption of knowability supply of the subsidiary by the parent. Consequently, economic operators concerned would not be considered by the legislature in a position to make such offers from demonstrate the independence, professionalism and reliability you need, because they would be bound by a close community of interests. The provision that would prohibit such relationships with businesses so to participate concurrently in the same race and, in cases where it is found to be participating, these enterprises must be excluded from the tendering procedure. This court also notes that the concept of 'subsidiary' in Italian law is similar to that of "related company" as defined in Art. 3, No 4 of Directive 93/37.
15 The national court also notes that the Italian courts, a rule like that set out in Article. 10, paragraph 1 bis of Law 109/1994 value of the rule of public policy, applicable in general. This rule is in fact the expression of a general principle that goes beyond the field of public works and also in the award in the services and supplies, despite the fact that, in the latter, there is no such specific provision. The legislature confirmed the jurisprudential approach with the adoption of Article. 34, last paragraph, of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which currently governs all matters of public contracts, the latter legislation, however, is not applicable ratione temporis, in this case.
16 The court, however, is uncertain whether such an approach is compatible with the Community legal order and, in particular, with the art. 29 of Directive 92/50, as interpreted by the Court in February 9, 2006, joined cases C 226/04 and C 228/04, The Farm and a. (ECR. The 1347, paragraphs 21-23). That provision, which is the expression of the principle of 'favor participationis', namely the interest in that as many firms as possible take part in a tender, contains, according to that ruling, an exhaustive list of causes of exclusion from participation in a service contract. Among these causes not include the situation of companies linked by a relationship of control or decisive influence.
17 The national court, however, considers that Article. 10, paragraph 1 bis of Law 109/1994 an expression of the principle of free competition, in that it seeks to penalize any collusion between firms in a tender procedure. Consequently, it would be adopted in strict conformity with the EC Treaty, in particular Articles. 81 et seq. the latter, and not really inconsistent with art. 29 of Directive 92/50.
18 In light of these considerations, the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question:
"If the art. 29 of Directive 92/50 (...), by providing seven grounds for exclusion from participation in service contracts, constitutes a "numerus clausus" hypothesis of impediments and thus preclude Article. 10, paragraph 1 bis of Law 109/94 (now replaced by. 34, last paragraph, of Legislative Decree No 163/06) to establish a ban on simultaneous participation in the tender for companies where there exists a relationship of control. " On the question

19 In order to answer that question, it should be noted that, according to the case, the seven grounds for exclusion of a contractor from participating in a public contract under art. 29, first paragraph, of Directive 92/50 relating to their professional honesty, solvency and reliability of the person concerned, namely the professional qualities of the latter (see, to that effect, and at La Bastide ., cit., paragraph 21).
20 The Court, with regard to art. 24, first paragraph, of Directive 93/37, which builds on the same grounds for exclusion under Article. 29, first paragraph, of Directive 92/50, stressed that the intention of the legislature was to consider in this provision only cause di esclusione riguardanti unicamente le qualità professionali degli interessati. Nella misura in cui essa ribadisce siffatte cause di esclusione, tale elenco è stato considerato tassativo dalla Corte (v., in tal senso, sentenza 16 dicembre 2008, causa C 213/07, Michaniki, non ancora pubblicata nella Raccolta, punti 42 e 43 nonché la giurisprudenza ivi citata).
21 La Corte ha aggiunto che questo elenco tassativo non esclude tuttavia la facoltà degli Stati membri di mantenere o di stabilire, in aggiunta a tali cause di esclusione, norme sostanziali dirette, in particolare, a garantire, in materia di appalti pubblici, il rispetto dei principi di parità di trattamento di tutti gli offerenti e di trasparenza, che costituiscono la base delle direttive comunitarie relative alle procedure di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici, a condizione però che venga rispettato il principio di proporzionalità (v., in tal senso, sentenza Michaniki, cit., punti 44-48 e la giurisprudenza ivi citata).
22 È palese che una misura legislativa nazionale come quella di cui trattasi nella causa principale è intesa a scongiurare ogni possibile forma di collusione tra i partecipanti ad una medesima procedura di aggiudicazione di un appalto pubblico nonché a tutelare la parità di trattamento dei candidati e la trasparenza della procedura.
23 Si deve dunque affermare che l’art. 29, primo comma, della direttiva 92/50 non osta a che uno Stato membro, in aggiunta alle cause di esclusione contemplate da tale disposizione, preveda ulteriori cause di esclusione finalizzate a garantire il rispetto dei principi di parità di trattamento e di trasparenza, a condizione che tali misure non eccedano quanto necessario per conseguire la suddetta finalità.
24 Ne consegue che la conformità al diritto comunitario della normativa nazionale in questione nella causa principale deve essere ulteriormente esaminata alla luce del principio di proporzionalità.
25 A tale riguardo, va ricordato che le norme comunitarie in materia di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici sono state adottate nell’ambito della realizzazione del mercato interno, nel quale è assicurata la libera circolazione e sono eliminate le restrizioni alla competition (see, to that effect, February 21, 2008, Case 412/04, Commission v Italy, ECR. I 619, paragraph 2).
26 In this context of a single internal market and effective competition is in the interests of Community law to ensure the widest possible participation of bidders in a tender.
27 The order for reference that the provision at issue in the proceedings, written in clear and definite, implies an absolute requirement for contracting authorities to exclude from the tendering companies that submit separate and competing if these businesses are linked by relations of control, such as those under domestic law at issue.
28 However, it would be counter to the effective application of Community law the systematic exclusion of companies that are linked together by the right to participate in the same procedure for the award of public contracts. Such a solution would considerably reduce the competition at Community level.
29 Therefore, it is clear that the national legislation at issue in this case, in so far as extending the ban on participation in the same procedure for the award to situations in which the control relationship between the undertakings concerned any effect on the behavior of the latter part of such procedures, beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring the application of the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
30 Such legislation, based on an irrebuttable presumption that the tenders submitted for the same contract by companies will necessarily have been influenced by one another, violates the principle of proportionality, it does not allow such undertakings the opportunity to demonstrate that, in their case, there is no real risk of occurrence of practices which jeopardize the transparency and distort competition among the bidders (see, to that effect, 3 March 2005, Joined Cases C 21/03 and C -34/03, Fabricom ECR. The 1559 points 33 and 35, and Michaniki, cit., Paragraph 62).
31 In this regard it should be noted that clusters can have different forms and objectives, and do not necessarily preclude subsidiaries enjoy a certain autonomy in the management of their commercial policy and their economic activities, particularly in the area of \u200b\u200bparticipation at public auctions. Moreover, as the Commission noted in its written observations, the relationship between enterprises of the same group may be governed by special provisions, such as type of contract, to ensure both the independence and confidentiality in the preparation of offers be submitted simultaneously by firms in questione nell’ambito di una medesima gara d’appalto.
32 In tale contesto, il compito di accertare se il rapporto di controllo in questione abbia esercitato un’influenza sul contenuto delle rispettive offerte depositate dalle imprese interessate nell’ambito di una stessa procedura di aggiudicazione pubblica richiede un esame e una valutazione dei fatti che spetta alle amministrazioni aggiudicatrici effettuare. La constatazione di un’influenza siffatta, in qualunque forma, è sufficiente per escludere tali imprese dalla procedura di cui trattasi. Per contro, la semplice constatazione dell’esistenza di un rapporto di controllo tra le imprese considerate, risultante dall’assetto proprietario o dal numero dei diritti voting may be exercised in the ordinary, is not sufficient for the contracting authority may automatically exclude these companies from the procurement procedure, without ascertaining whether such a relationship had a real impact on their conduct in this procedure.
33 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is as follows:
- art. 29, first paragraph, of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, in addition to the grounds of exclusion under that provision, other causes of exclusion intended to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, and
- Community law precludes a national provision which, while pursuing the legitimate objectives of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, establish an absolute prohibition against companies including a relationship of control or which are linked together, take part in simultaneous and competing for the same race of contract, without affording them the opportunity to demonstrate that the relationship did not influence their behavior nell’ambito di tale gara.
Sulle spese
34 Nei confronti delle parti nella causa principale il presente procedimento costituisce un incidente sollevato dinanzi al giudice del rinvio, cui spetta quindi statuire sulle spese. Le spese sostenute da altri soggetti per presentare osservazioni alla Corte non possono dar luogo a rifusione.

Per questi motivi,

la Corte (Quarta Sezione) dichiara:

L’art. 29, primo comma, della direttiva del Consiglio 18 giugno 1992, 92/50/CEE, che coordina le procedure di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici di servizi, deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso non osta a che uno Stato membro, in aggiunta alle cause exclusion under that provision, other causes of exclusion intended to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency, provided that such measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

Community law precludes a national provision which, while pursuing the legitimate objectives of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, establish an absolute prohibition against companies including a relationship of control or which are linked together, take part in simultaneous and competing for the same tender, leaving them the opportunity to demonstrate that the relationship did not influence their behavior within that race.