REPUBBLICAITALIANA
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Council of State in the courts (Section Four) gives the following
DECISION
rgn8326/2008 The action brought on appeal by Anas spa, in the person of lrpt, represented and defended by the Attorney General State, whose offices at home in Rome on the street of the Portuguese n.12,
against
Giuseppe Sammarco Construction Ltd., in the person of lrpt, represented by defense attorneys Alfredo Verbaro Gualtieri and Demetrius, with an address in Rome at Via Ovid No 10 Bei Anna Rose at the office, and against
Emmedue Ltd in the person of lrpt not formed,
for the annulment of the decision n.1138
of 2008 the TAR Calabria-Catanzaro filed on July 29 2008 notified on August 1, 2008, by which it was granted the appeal brought by Sammons Ltd against the withdrawal of the award prot. n.3416-P of February 6, 2008, the resulting award successivamente disposta a favore della società Emmedue srl, ove occorra del bando di gara, nonché per la dichiarazione di nullità, annullamento, inefficacia o disapplicazione dell’eventuale contratto nel frattempo stipulato.
Visto il ricorso con i relativi allegati;
Visto l’atto di costituzione in giudizio di Sammarco srl;
Viste le memorie prodotte dalle parti a sostegno delle rispettive difese;
Visto il dispositivo di sentenza n. 78 dell’11/2/09;
Relatore alla udienza pubblica del 10 febbraio 2009 il Consigliere Sergio De Felice;
Uditi l’avv. Verbaro e l’avv. dello Stato Stigliano;
Ritenuto in fatto e considerato in diritto quanto segue;
FACT
an action brought before the Regional Administrative Court of the Calabrian society Sammarco Ltd. acted against the withdrawal of the award of which had been addressed in the race to work on the so-called state of Serre by winning the criterion of the lowest in the basis of race pursuant to Article 82 Public Contracts Code. Having
Anas SpA provides control of the requirements stated in the competition especially with regard to regular contributions, the company said it would not have resulted in good standing as of December 17, 2007.
The withdrawal was justified on the grounds that in its audit by 17 December 2007, the company would not rule con il versamento dei contributi INPS-INAIL- Cassa edile, come da nota del 22 gennaio 2008, mentre alla data della domanda di partecipazione del 10 dicembre 2007 aveva dichiarato la propria regolarità contributiva, sulla scorta del DURC rilasciato alla stessa società in data 20 novembre 2007, che scadeva, sulla base della circolare del Ministero Lavoro e Previdenza sociale 30.1.2008, n.5, in data 20 dicembre 2007, mentre il periodo di gara terminava in data 18 dicembre 2007.
Nei fatti pertanto la domanda di partecipazione era del 10 dicembre 2007, la concorrente dichiarava di essere in regola con le dovute contribuzioni (INPS- INAIL- Cassa edile) e produceva DURC rilasciato in data 20 novembre 2007 che, in base all’art. 7 DM 24 ottobre 2007, covering a period of validity until 20 December 2007, covered the period of tender which closed on December 18, 2007.
the negative outcome of the next test, on 16 January, warned of the initiation of revocation of the final award; Anas was based on a new DURC of January 10, 2008, which showed that the company concerned was not regular payment date of December 17, 2007.
Company on January 30, 2008 was sent Anas with a note which stated that it was complying with the duties of insurance, but that certification bodies, except Inail, were unable to comment because of the regularity computer problems. On 11 febbraio 2008 la società faceva pervenire altra certificazione durc dalla quale risultava la regolarità contributiva alla data del 17 dicembre 2007. A questo punto l’Anas sospendeva la revoca e chiedeva ai tre enti previdenziali di confermare il contenuto della nota dell’11 febbraio 2008.
La Cassa edile con nota del 14 febbraio 2008 rispondeva che in relazione al durc emesso in data 11 febbraio 2008, alla dicitura “è in regola” dovesse sostituirsi quella “non è in regola con i versamenti alla data del 17 dicembre 2007”. L’INPS analogamente con nota del 20 febbraio 2008 rilevava che la società in questione in realtà aveva provveduto a regolarizzare la propria posizione contributiva solo in data 16 gennaio 2008 e quindi alla data del 17 dicembre 2007 non era da considerarsi in regola.
Il giudice di primo grado accoglieva il ricorso ritenendo che il “buco” di regolarità contributiva riguardasse pochi giorni; si faceva riferimento anche alla contraddittorietà degli enti certificatori, al fatto che si trattava di inadempimenti non gravi e che la regolarizzazione era avvenuta al più presto, alla mancanza della gravità richiesta dall’articolo 38 del codice contratti pubblici, alla possibilità della regolarizzazione successiva, consentita sia dal Consiglio di Stato che dal giudice comunitario; tutte tali circostanze, secondo il primo giudice, renderebbero non legittima la revoca della aggiudicazione definitiva.
Il giudice di primo grado riteneva inoltre applicabile ratione temporis il d.m. 24 ottobre 2007, che statuisce con norma di diritto positivo espressamente la possibilità di regolarizzazione entro un certo termine.
Avverso la suddetta sentenza propone appello l’Anas spa, appaltante, che deduce la ingiustizia della pronuncia, in sostanza richiamando l’articolo 38 codice contratti pubblici (sia pure evidenziando che esso si rivolgerebbe ai meri partecipanti e per i quali sarebbe prevista la esclusione in caso di commissione di violazioni gravi, definitivamente accertate, alle norme in materia di contributi previdenziali e assistenziali, secondo la legislazione italiana o dello Stato in cui sono stabiliti”) e l’articolo 2 D.L. 210/2002 (Referred to in that Article 38), which is aimed specifically to foster.
It is argued however that the company should be in foster compliance with its obligations to social security, while in the case was clearly the irregularities of the position with two out of three institutions.
Moreover, the same article 38 paragraph 3 concludes that "it remains stationary, the Trustee, the requirement for certification of regular contributions referred to in Article 2 of Decree-Law of 25 September 2002, n .210, converted into law November 22, 2002, and 266 of Article 3, paragraph 8, of Legislative Decree 14 August 1996, n.494, as amended and supplemented. " The appeal argues that the
Sammarco as attesting the Building Fund of Catanzaro, 14.2.2008 at the date of 17.12.2007 was not in compliance with its obligations and has regularized his position only on 18 January 2008; for INPS (certificates, 20.2.2008), the company "has taken steps to rectify the tax position on 16.1.2008, 17.12.2008 and then to not be considered in good standing."
Therefore, based on the lack of regular contributions dell'affidatario, the withdrawal of the award was a necessary act, regardless of any assessment of the seriousness of any breach or not.
The appellant also complained about the violation of the said dm October 24, 2007, published in OJ 30.11.2007 entered into force only on 12/30/2007 (for which the DURC would have a month's validity), since it is not in force at the time of the race.
It consists of asking the company Sammarco declare the inadmissibility of the appeal, because it did not criticize the real reason for revocation of any award consisting of the "untrue statement" because it was not in compliance with tax obligations.
Substance seeks the dismissal of the appeal as unfounded.
the chambers on November 18, 2008 this section, considering an initial summary of the reasons of appeal worthy exequatur di positiva valutazione, rinviava la causa ex articolo 23 bis l.1034 del 1971 alla udienza di discussione del 10 febbraio 2009.
Con memoria depositata in data 30 gennaio 2009 la impresa Sammarco ha eccepito la improcedibilità del ricorso, a causa del quasi esaurimento del rapporto perché i lavori sono stati eseguiti; ha eccepito anche la acquiescenza della amministrazione, che nel frattempo ha stipulato il contratto.
Alla udienza di discussione del 10 febbraio 2009 la causa è stata trattenuta in decisione.
DIRITTO
1.In via preliminare, il Collegio osserva che sono destituite di ogni fondamento e come tali da rigettare le eccezioni sollevate da parte appellata, relative alla improcedibilità and acquiescence.
It 'obvious that, for the principle of continuity of administrative action, the administration issued the policy that, in the course of proceedings, enforcement of judgments in the presence and absence of acceptance of judicial protection, has had its proper conduct .
This additional activity can not be inferred, however, do not acquiescent behavior of the administration, which has indeed grown up in the bottom of its protection, or a lack of interest occurred for admissibility, as if to give preference to the principle of so-called fact.
E 'known that the legality of the choice of the so-called "right contractor" can not keep its usefulness for legal administration also contract out because practically runs on its own legality, illegality, or conversely, can and must further sorting consequential effects on administrative activities, the activities of contract and equity point of view of those involved ( on the permanence of such interest to the case law is so extensive that it is not considered to have to mention).
2.All same way is no basis to the objection of inadmissibility of the appeal on the grounds that the appellant administration has pinned his complaints of irregularities only on the objective position to pay, nothing comments on the real reason for exclusion, which would in reality the mendacity and falsehood of the declaration of regular contributions.
The Board notes in this regard that is necessary but also sufficient to allow the admissibility of the appeal of the contracting administration the concentration of the grounds for appeal on the objective and overt position of irregularity to pay.
Considering that usually accompanies the position of irregularity and is connected, as in this case, such a statement, but false, statements of regularity, the reminder of the mendacity and falsehood is, according to the College, a further absorbent and good cause act negative withdrawal of the award. 3.In the
on the appeal is well founded.
The regular contributions and taxation of the parties to tender for the award of contracts with the PA must be present at the time of offer and must be ensured even in the moments following the presentation of supply and demand, and then of course until the award, being the obvious need for the contracting authority to verify the reliability of the participant in the race until the end of it (C. State, IV, May 31, 2007, n.2876).
The necessity of the regularity assumption is that the rules permit the administration to determine, in the presence of contradictory elements, the actual situation in order, among other things, the tax position of the individual participant company (C. State, IV, May 31, 2007, n.2876).
Following the entry into force of discipline on certificate of regular contributions, imposed by Articles 2, dl 25 September 2002, n.210, as amended by l.conv. 266 of 22 November 2002, paragraph 10 and 86 Leg. September 10, 2003, n.276, verification of the regularity of contributions of the companies participating in the tendering procedures for procurement with the public administration is left to the institutions security, whose certifications are necessary to contracting, which can not criticize il contenuto (Consiglio Stato, V, 23 gennaio 2008, n.147).
In materia di gare per l’aggiudicazione di lavori pubblici, dalla disciplina istitutiva del Durc (Documento unico di regolarità contributiva, rilasciato in base a convenzioni tra Inps e Inail ai sensi dell’articolo 2 comma 2 d.l. 25 settembre 2002 n.210), l’impresa che si rende aggiudicataria di un appalto deve non solo essere in regola con gli obblighi previdenziali ed assistenziali sulla stessa gravanti fin dal momento della presentazione della domanda, ma deve conservare la correttezza contributiva per tutto lo svolgimento del rapporto contrattuale.
Ne consegue che l’eventuale accertamento di una pendenza di carattere previdenziale o assistenziale in capo all’impresa pur dichiarata aggiudicataria dell’appalto prodottasi anche in epoca successiva alla scadenza del termine per partecipare al procedimento di scelta del contraente implica, a seconda dei casi, la impossibilità per l’amministrazione appaltante di stipulare il contratto con l’impresa medesima, ovvero la risoluzione dello stesso; sempre in forza di ciò, è del tutto irrilevante un eventuale adempimento tardivo della obbligazione contributiva quand’anche ricondotto retroattivamente, quanto ad efficacia, al momento della scadenza del termine di pagamento.
Si ritiene anche che – a causa della inderogabilità e imperatività della disciplina in questione - nel caso in cui un bando di gara di appalto public does not include a requirement for the company that is allotted to submit to the contracting certification on the regular contributions, the same invitation is meant by integrated prescription of the obligation under Article. 2 dl September 25, 2002, n.210.
Article 1, paragraph 1 dl September 25, 2002 n.210 (converted with amendments by l.22 266 of November 2002), determined that the undertakings entrusted with a public contract are required to submit to the contracting certification on regular contributions on pain of revocation of custody.
A clear logic of economics leads to legal means to interpret that provision to the effect of making necessary the exclusion from the race many times, as in this case, the situation of irregularity is overt, like the administrative documents held by the contracting authority, in a stage prior to the intervention of the award, and so in order to avoid illogical award a race destined to be the subject of mandatory self-defense and later as did the legislation mentioned here (Council of State, VI, October 29, 2004, n.7045). The regularity is determined by
has belonged to a mere participant (which may be in custody cases) and in this sense can not mend a variety of rigid discipline among the participants and caregivers. The defense firm
Recalls that Article 38 paragraph 1 letter i) requires the existence of "serious violations" and the mere mention DURC in the absence of regular contributions may not in itself lead to the exclusion of the company found not in compliance because the document in question does not specify anything about the finality of the investigation (in this respect the opinion of the Supervisory Authority for Public Contracts of Works, Services and Supplies n.102 8 November 2007, which essentially defers the decision of the contracting authority).
In the opposite direction compared to the defensive positions of the company Sammarco should be noted that in this case the investor, then foster, as evidenced by related claims, as of December 17, 2007, coinciding with the award has been made, or was not in compliance with the building or with the Social Security Fund.
It is therefore a serious irregularities and already subsisting at the time of the award stage. There is also
dispute or refutation of these claims and DURC takes the value of a statement of science, to be placed between the documents for certification or written statement by a public official and being purely declarative data available to the public administration assisted by public trust under Article 2700 Civil Code, thus making the test to be false.
Given the legal nature of the DURC, non residua in capo alla stazione appaltante alcun margine di valutazione o di apprezzamento in ordine ai dati ed alle circostanze in esso contenute.
Non risulta che per la situazione di attestata irregolarità sia stato attivato alcun tipo di tutela al fine di contestare l’accertamento (tutela che, se azionata in modo non temerario, avrebbe reso non definitivamente accertato il grave inadempimento).
Nella specie si è verificata in primo luogo una ipotesi di falsità della dichiarazione in merito alla posizione di regolarità contributiva; in secondo luogo, e in ogni caso, la posizione di irregolarità contributiva deve ritenersi acclarata, non contestata, non regolarizzabile a posteriori, non contestata in fatto, da assessed certainly no small terms, covering that period, two out of three institutions.
4.Non is also useful to allow room for tolerance in favor of the company Sammarco call made by the first judge to the ministerial decree published in the Official Gazette of November 30, 2007, entered into force only on December 30, 2007 (bill which would allow a call from the institutions to stabilize the failure to pay within a tolerance of fifteen days).
As also observed by the first court, called the decree is effective only from 30 December 2007, the award took place on December 17, 2007 and the race at that time shall be considered conclusive, nor the proceedings can still be considered pending, for the next innovative application of rules, only because the procedure already stated in substance is followed and any subsequent testing.
On the issue of custody of a public works contract, the production of a DURC, within the period of its effectiveness, is useful not only for the purpose of participating in the race, but is also capable of proving the status of regular or irregular contributions of Article 75 DPR 554/1999, so once the legislature has normed space of time within which a DURC must be considered valid (in this case covered until the award stage and had not allowed a regularity later), its effectiveness is in all respects for which is relevant in the context of a race.
Nor can it be assumed that the application of the ministerial decree occurred.
For the administrative procedure law lacks a general rule, as in other jurisdictions (for example, German), the applicable law in relation to the various stages of proceedings (initiative, investigation, decision-making and effectiveness of integrative) establishing the scope of applicability of the innovative supervening legislation (the so-called new right).
This discipline does exist in criminal law (and be deemed to apply also to criminal proceedings) to 'Article 2 of the Criminal Code, the so-called iperretroattività more lenient criminal law and the law applies only the worst for the future, the principle is shown on the tax law, since the new legislation is always linked to the current ability to pay (Article 53 of the Constitution); exist in substantive law and in the calendar which the law unless there is expressed, does not have that in the future (Article 11 of preleggi), whereas in the case law under that Article 11 is intended to apply immediately back to the right processes are still pending, because it is not yet exhausted.
With regard to the effectiveness of the annulment of judgments of the Constitutional Court has established principle that relationships are intangible covered by the court or be exhausted, and are subject to futility, the so-called reports are pending.
For the administrative procedure law merely regulates the time of conclusion of the proceedings in Article 2 of Law 241 of 1990, but the rules applicable in relation to temporal stages of proceedings.
however, that the general principle tempus actum regit on the basis of which the conventional wisdom believes that the new rules are invoked when the process has already spent basically the most significant phase of the matter is, as in this case is the case with the award the race.
The administrative procedure is governed by the principle tempus actum regit (ex plurimis on this principle the State Council, IV, 08/06/2007, n.3027), which implies that the legitimacy of a measure must be assessed in relation to standards in force at the time when the same shall be adopted in relation substantial interests protected at that stage of the proceedings (in this case the phase of tenders to the final phase of the future decision-making and adjudication).
Conclusively, it was not relied on the ministerial decree subsequent to the granting of a period of tolerance for the regularization.
5.For the foregoing, the appeal is upheld, and the reform of the contested decision, the appeal must be dismissed at first instance.
There are good reasons to place between the parties, the compensation of the costs of two levels.
PQM
The Council of State in the courts, the fourth section, finally pronouncing on the application signed below, hereby orders:
accept the appeal and, by way of appeal ruling, dismissed the action brought in the first instance. Offset costs. Sort
that this decision is carried out by the administrative authority.
Decided in Rome in chambers on February 10, 2009, with the intervention of judges: John Vacirca
President Armando Luigi Pozzi
Maruotti Councillor Councillor Anthony
Anastasi
Councilor Councilor Sergio De Felice, ext. The author
THE PRESIDENT
Sergio De Felice Giovanni Vacirca
THE SECRETARY
Rosario Giorgio Carnabuci
Filed in the Secretary
The
12/3/2009 (Art. 55, L. 27/4/1982, n. 186)
For / The Manager
Dr. Joseph Testa
0 comments:
Post a Comment