ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Regional Administrative Court of the Piedmont
(Section Two)
gives the following
JUDGEMENT
The application registration number General 1263 of 2009 proposed by:
Fontaneto Autoservizi Srl, represented by defense lawyer. Prof. Fabio Vittorio Baros is the year, with an address at the Chambers. Barosi Prof. Vittorio in Turin, Corso G. Ferraris, 120;
against
Piedmont Region, represented and defended by the lawyer. Marco Piovano, with an address elected at the same in Turin, Piazza Castello, 165;
Province of Novara, represented and defended by the lawyer. Mauro Renna, with an address at the Chambers. Luigi Gili in Turin, Via Vela, 29;
to ascertain
law Fontaneto Autoservizi Ltd receive the sum of € 4,780,949.31 - or that amount will be determined during the proceedings - by way of "compensation" (in accordance with EEC Regulations No 1191/1969 and No 1893/1991) of the economic costs it has incurred in the years from 1999 to 2007 for the fulfillment of public service obligations imposed by the Piedmont Region and the Province of Novara, the effect of sottoscrizione dei rispettivi "contratti di servizio" recanti la concessione del servizio di trasporto pubblico locale,
e per la conseguente condanna
della Regione Piemonte e della Provincia di Novara a corrispondere alla Fontaneto Autoservizi s.r.l. le somme sopra indicate, oltre ad interessi e rivalutazione monetaria,
previa dichiarazione di nullità
dell'art. 6 dei contratti stipulati inter partes per gli esercizi dal 1999 al 2007, e delle ulteriori clausole in essi contenute, nella parte in cui prevedono la corresponsione alla ricorrente, concessionaria del servizio di trasporto pubblico locale, di somme non sufficienti ad assicurare il rimborso integrale, calcolato nel modo previsto dal reg. EEC No 1191/1969 (and is, according to criteria of effectiveness), the economic costs it has incurred to fulfill their public service obligations,
after disapplication
and / or cancellation (with respect to acts and administrative regulations)
any provision (of rank legislative, regulatory or administrative) which excludes the applicant's right to receive directly from the Province of Novara and the Regione Piemonte full reimbursement, calculated as required by reg. EEC No 1191/1969 (and is, according to criteria of effectiveness), the economic costs it has incurred to fulfill their public service obligations,
e previa idonea misura cautelare
nella forma dell'ingiunzione ex art. 21 comma 8 della legge n. 1034/1971
(come modificato dall'art. 3 comma 1 della legge n. 205/2000)
nei confronti della Regione Piemonte e della Provincia di Novara, in relazione alla suddetta somma di euro 4.780.949,31 o, in subordine, a titolo di "provvisionale", almeno in relazione alla somma di euro 674.756,20.
Visto il ricorso con i relativi allegati;
Visti gli atti di costituzione in giudizio della Regione Piemonte e della Provincia di Novara;
Viste le memorie difensive;
Visti tutti gli atti della causa;
Rapporteur of the public hearing on May 26, 2010, dr. John Paul Nicolo 'Lots and the defenders heard the parties as specified in the minutes;
held and considered the facts and law as follows.
FACT
With its appeal, appellant sets of professionally qualified in the business of public transport of passengers on local bus lines (urban, suburban, regional and interregional), in fulfilling their public service obligations imposed on it by the local authority until 1998, under the appropriate provisions of the grant (and related disciplines, conform to the model in the deliberations of the Regional Council 25.11.1991, No 317-10885) signed by the Piedmont Region and the Province of Novara, with effect from 10.1.1999, following the transfer of its powers to local authorities on behalf of the Province of Novara at the expense of the Piedmont Region, under special "service contracts" annual repeatedly extended.
It states that the imposition of public service entails economic disadvantages which are clearly contrary to the business of private entities and that this would not be able to bear them, they can not be fully paid from income generated from rates paid by users, fixed by the Administration with the political criteria, less than the economic value of benefits, so that this can distort the market, the Community legislation (Regulation EC No 1191/1969 of the Council on 26.6.1969, as amended by Council Regulation EEC No 1893/1991 on 20.06.1991) and Italian (d. lgs. No 422/1997, cd. Burlando Decree) have predicted that the economic burden from fulfilling those obligations of public service are fully reimbursed by private transport companies 'public body, for the portion not covered by the tariff revenue with the mechanism of financial compensation. This mechanism has been explicitly implemented by the legislature with the Italian national d. lgs. No 422/1997 and the Piedmont Region to the Regional Law 1 / 2000.
It still exposes the d. lgs. No 422/1991 provides for a regime, the conclusion of "service contracts" to be awarded following a competitive trial, and after identifying the overall structure of local transport services, on a provisional basis, pending approval of the Regional Implementation of the Law that d. lgs. 422/1997, the Piedmont Regional Council adopted the resolution, 16.11.1998, No 74-25984, with whom he has given to the provinces and municipalities the administrative and financial functions relating to the local public transport, with specific reference to bus services have "delegated" to these local bodies under the Regional Law 1 / 1986, has also defined the amount of regional transport fund, giving to these economic resources relevant local authorities.
It states that the application of those provisions had been extended even to the year 2000 as a result of the deliberations of the Regional Council of Piedmont, 3.12.1999, n. 35-28910 and, following the issuance of LR No. 1 / 2000 (Regulations on local public transport in the implementation of Legislative Decree no. November 19, 1997, n. 422), was essentially confirmed in all subsequent years that stake, up to 2007, as a result of the deliberations of the Piedmont Regional Council on 1 March 2000, no 98-29587, dated 1 August 2003, n. 78-10244 and on February 19, 2007, No 8-5296. Pursuant to the above, the Piedmont Region has prepared a model contract, under which the Province of Novara and the applicant, with effect from 01.01.1999, signed a yearly service contract for the regulation of custody service public transport of persons, in other cases it was simply an extension of the signed contract already concluded the previous year.
It states that, against the imposition of public service obligations, the contract provides for the payment of financial compensation to the concessionaire be determined by reference to the specific business situation with regard to both costs and revenues. Take as a basis for calculating the contribution mileage, the dealer paid by the Piedmont Region for 1997 and 1998, representative of the cost obligations in terms of average efficiency in service revenues and retractable from the routes covered by the contract.
were explicitly excluded variations in the amount of financial compensation even if the facts prove, for any reason, other than that assumed in the "contract". Annex 7 to the same "service contract" is clear that these financial compensation, in reality, correspond to contribuzioni aziendali per linea gia riconosciute dalla Regione Piemonte nel precedente regime disciplinato dalla legge n. 151/1981. Analoga precisazione si rinverrebbe anche nell’art. 5.2. del “contratto”, che definisce i corrispettivi dovuti al concessionario come “contributo chilometrico a titolo di compensazione degli obblighi di servizio.
Si espone, infine, che le clausole appena illustrate si ripetono, pressoché identiche, in tutti i contratti riguardanti gli esercizi successivi al 1999; con specifico riferimento ai corrispettivi economici dovuti al concessionario, in tutti i contratti successivi scompare il riferimento alla metodologia che ha condotto l’Amministrazione a quantificare concretamente il corrispettivo dovuto al concessionario, ma viene mantenuto il medesimo importo, cioè la contribuzione chilometrica prevista nel contratto base del 1999, a prescindere da qualsivoglia valutazione circa i costi e i ricavi effettivi e, in particolare, senza tenere conto dei notevoli incrementi subiti tra il 1999 e il 2007 dalle diverse componenti dei costi. L’Amministrazione ha sempre provveduto a liquidare i soli importi economici previsti nei (rispettivi) contratti di servizio, che rimborsano solo una parte dei costi effettivamente sostenuti per l’adempimento degli obblighi di servizio pubblico imposti e la ricorrente ha interesse a riscuotere le somme ad essa dovute, anche al fine di ristabilire i propri equilibri contabili e di recuperare competitività sul mercato.
Secondo parte ricorrente, i motivi di accoglimento si baserebbero sui seguenti argomenti:
- Applicabilità del Regolamento C.E.E. n. 1191/1969 del Consiglio del 26.6.1969 (nel testo modificato dal Regolamento C.E.E. n. 1893/1991 del Consiglio del 20.6.1991) e, in particolare, degli artt. 1-2-5-6-9-10-11-13-14-20, nonché dei principi espressi nel 1° - 2° - 11° - 12° - 14° - 15° “considerando” del Regolamento C.E.E. n. 1191/1969. Disapplicazione della disciplina interna (legislativa e regolamentare), nonché disapplicazione e/o invalidità degli atti amministrativi e delle clausole contrattuali per contrasto con le fonti comunitarie.
- Rinvio pregiudiziale the European Court of Justice pursuant to art. 234 of the EC Treaty
- With regard to the quantum of the sums owed by the Administration, the applicant states that written proof of their claims would amount to € 4,780,949.31.
You were the intimate Administration seeks the dismissal of the appeal.
the public hearing on May 26, 2010, the appeal was placed in the decision.
LAW
outset the Board notes its jurisdiction and competence which comes necessarily paying attention to the legal nature of the service contract concluded between the applicant and Administration and that is the basis of plaintiff's request.
not ignore that part of the College administrative case law states that belong to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, the dispute involving the law, which the dealer the service of local public transport is assumed to be the owner because it accorded by Community law, the contributions The Region is required to pay for transport companies to ensure a balanced budget to the same (see TAR Calabria, Catanzaro, sect. II, November 4, 2009, n. 1181).
However, this ignores the law as to which such contracts are not actually stores under private law, but cd. subject to public contracts, in particular, they fall within the category of agreements substitute for the measure, which substitutes the decision granting, regulating the relations formerly subsisting and manager-directors; these agreements, therefore, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the GA under Article. Of 11 l. 241, 1990.
The particularity the present arrangement is to belong to the species of the cd. "Necessary arrangements", species typical of local public service sector, which is the same legislature to impose an agreement in place of the measure.
In this case, the replacement of the concession form, which means provvedimentale typical of increasing nature of one-sided, with the form bilaterale è attuata direttamente dal legislatore, ma non per questo ne viene modificata ed inficiata la natura giuridica e l’appartenenza alla categoria degli accordi ex art. 11 che, come è noto, costituiscono forme alternative, ritenute più moderne e comunque più flessibili, di esercizio di una potestà che rimane, tuttavia, genuinamente pubblica.
Con riferimento ai contratti di servizi, è noto che il legislatore ha introdotto il concetto di “contratto” come strumento di regolazione dei rapporti tra Ente e azienda speciale per effetto della previsione contenuta nell’art. 4 L. 95/95 (art. 114 TUEL). Un riferimento allo stesso come “convenzione con le società miste” si trova also art. 5 DPR 533/96.
industry regulations (so-called Laws "Ronchey" L. 4 / 93, "Galli L. 36/94," snake oil "Leg. 422/97," read "Leg. 164/00) negotiating tool refer to the items compared with the evaluation of the results of reliable service.
Article. 35 L. 448/01 (reforming Articles. TUEL 113 and 113-bis) introduced a general obligation of the service contract for the regulation of the relationship between PA and the donor of the public service in relation to any notion of public service expectations Local and predicted that the service contract should be attached to the invitation to tender, during choice of subject operator.
We can define the service contract as the ratio by which a public entity entrusts a provider (the operator) the conduct of certain public services, and possible with the simultaneous transfer of public functions and public goods instrumental to the conduct of service and entrusted with the identification of specific standards of public service obligations: the parts are identified by a concession-side in public and, in the subject service provider entrusted with custody.
The introduction of this figure has certainly given the doubts about its legal nature.
The Board notes, however, that the administrative activities, even when it uses private law instruments, it is still functionalized activities, and in this respect (which is the only relevant), administrative duties, subject therefore to the general rules of 'administrative duties, other than those governing the private-activity.
In its observations on the figure of the contract under public law, in fact, doctrine and, in part, to the case took a further step of considerable size, noting that there is no necessity of two-way relationship between unilateral nature of power Administration and structure of the unilateral by which power is exercised and, therefore, the administrative authority may also find expression in acts bilateral. In the act
bilateral, consensual powers converge different in nature and discipline, but in the regulation of overlapping interests (commandment) to which the act seeks to give life. The identity of prescriptive content makes it possible that the agreement is made in the exercise of other powers, the public portion of the administrative power and autonomy of the private party. Nothing shall prevent the merger, or the convergence of different powers.
Regardless of elements that enrich, but make it more complicated and less clear, this idea, the result is reached is quite clear: next ai contratti di diritto privato, dove è comunque possibile e tradizionalmente accettato riconoscere all'Amministrazione il potere di autonomia privata, vengono a delinearsi fattispecie a struttura bilaterale, nelle quali l'Amministrazione svolge un potere unilaterale non privatistico; vengono a delinearsi accordi pubblicistici e convenzioni pubblicistiche.
L'art. 11 finisce per dare corpo di diritto positivo ai risultati della elaborazione dottrinale: nell'ambito del procedimento amministrativo, sempre più luogo non di ponderazione comparativa di interessi, ma di negoziazione degli stessi, la volontà del privato, comunque necessariamente coinvolto in funzione partecipativa, concorre al confezionamento della fattispecie produttiva of the precept, or, if you prefer, of the Rules of interests because the law allows (or requires, in the case of CDs. "necessary arrangements") that the Administration adhere to bilateral instruments, rather than take unilateral actions (measures). The agreements provided for in Article
. 11 created by the merger of administrative power and private autonomy are the result of discretion, are alternative (in whole or in part) to the unilateral measure: in this case, and under the category of the necessary arrangements, alternative nature that is placed upstream order (by law).
There are reasons to bring the law in preventing the accordi di cui all'art. 11 ai contratti ad evidenza pubblica; i contratti ad evidenza pubblica sono veri e propri contratti, soggetti come tali, in difetto di disposizioni legislative speciali o derogatorie, alla integrale disciplina codicistica; gli accordi non sono affatto disciplinati dall'insieme delle regole codicistiche, dato che ad essi si applicano soltanto i principi del codice civile in materia di obbligazioni e contratti in quanto compatibili (art. 11, comma 2).
Altrettanto evidente è la differenza di disciplina processuale: per i contratti ad evidenza pubblica sussiste la giurisdizione del giudice amministrativo in ordine alla formazione del contratto e la giurisdizione del giudice ordinario a proposito della sua interpretazione e della sua esecuzione.
Per gli accordi di cui all'art. 11 non esiste alcun riparto: tutte le controversie in materia di formazione, di conclusione e, ciò che più rileva, sul caso di specie, di esecuzione degli accordi sono riservate alla giurisdizione esclusiva del giudice amministrativo.
Nulla impedisce, com'è ovvio, che gli accordi siano qualificati, anche dal legislatore, come contratti, ma la qualificazione, in presenza di una disciplina profondamente diversa, rischia di avere rilievo meramente astratto, se non addirittura valore soltanto terminologico.
Il contratto è figura con propri caratteri fissati con precisione: la sua sostanza non si riduce all'accordo (o al consenso), triggering the application of a specific legal framework. Return to Article agreements. 11 to the general shape of the contract would be meaningless if this could lead to the extension of the framework agreements typical of the contract, but as we have seen, the law provides otherwise.
agreements do not qualify as contracts does not mean to deny the binding character. This character is a principle, perhaps the essential principle of the legal codes of the contract (art. 1372, paragraph 1, cc) and, as such, is expressly listed. 11.
It must also warn that the legal descriptions are relative to the laws that inspired them. This may mean that a complex case, which has room for a consensual act, may be at once considered the contract, according to an order, and unlike other second order.
is the case of the development agreement that qualified as articulated in national law, was found to contract in Community (EC Court of Justice July 12, 2001, in Case C-399/98).
Therefore, in addition to their formal classification as "contracts", the agreements in question are considered acts, in fact contracts, public law, there are all defining elements: the power to exercise administrative, being ordered the pursuit of the public, being provided to the administrative jurisdiction of any controversies.
As is known, the contract under public law is a figure known and studied at length by both the Germans by the French jurists: in those systems has a clear raison d'être since the criterion of apportionment of the courts is' build on that classification, want to refer to the rules (in Germany) want to people (in France). Thus, establishing that a contract is governed by public law (defined by different terminology, an administrative contract) means that it deals with the administrative court, while if you do not have this character, it must address the ordinary courts.
In our system, the same holds true: whether the acts were consensual true contracts, there will be a division of jurisdiction GO-GA, a second phase of the contract at issue, in the case of agreements pursuant to Art. 11 (therefore, subject to public contracts), shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the GA
As you know, the legal nature of the procedural module was also reaffirmed by the Constitutional Court Judgement No 204 of 2000, which, in assessing the constitutionality of Article. 33 paragraph 1, of Legislative lgs. No 80, 1998 (as amended by art. 7 of LN 205 of 2000) regarding exclusive jurisdiction, has made it clear that is a matter of jurisdiction other than that part of the same kind of materials entrusted to the jurisdiction of legitimacy, the Court held that the fact that it concerns matters that same part of their nature was marked by the fact that the Administration acts as the authority, authority over which protection is afforded to the citizen before the administrative courts.
the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's decision explicitly refers, albeit incidentally, also art. 11 of the Law on the procedure, as an example of an assumption of exclusive jurisdiction. In this passage emerges as the parallel held by the Constitutional Court of exclusive jurisdiction e articolo 11 sia indicativo della opinione secondo cui gli accordi amministrativi presuppongano sempre l'esistenza di potere autoritativo. Da questa prospettiva, che è utile richiamare in questa sede, si evince come non vi sia accordo amministrativo che non presupponga necessariamente esercizio di potere autoritativo. Il che induce a ritenere che non vi sia accordo senza l'astratta riconducibilità del potere esercitato nell'accordo alla categoria del potere discrezionale autoritativo. Partendo da tale asserzione, si deduce che è ipotizzabile lo strumento procedimentale consensuale di cui all'art. 11 della l. n. 241 del 1990 solo qualora vi sia esercizio, anche di tipo residuale, di potere discrezionale.
L'accordo amministrativo (sia di integrative and type replacement is possible and necessary) postulates, in fact, as a prerequisite, the existence of discretion.
In terms of jurisdiction, however, if one considers the Court of Cassation on the trend is clear to a broad interpretation of the jurisdictional limits of the administrative court pursuant to Art. 11, ln 241 (United Sections, Case No. 87, dated March 2, 2001; United Sections, December 15, 2000, No. 1262, United Sections 1 February 1999, n. 8; Cass., Sec. A., 10 December 2001, n. 15608).
In this context, therefore, the exercise of a power consensual journalism and the associated composition di interessi che rilevano nel rapporto amministrativo non potrà mai essere oggetto di un contratto di diritto privato, ma dovrà necessariamente essere regolato da un provvedimento, ovvero, ai sensi dell’art. 11 della l. 241 del 1990, dopo la riforma apportata nel 2005 che ha generalizzato l’istituto, da un atto che è manifestazione di esercizio consensuale della potestà pubblicistica e che viene denominato “accordo sostitutivo”.
In quest’ottica, dunque, poco importa che l’accordo non sia frutto di una libera scelta, discrezionale nell’an, della PA ma sia imposto già a livello normativo. Ciò che conta è che l’attività che è oggetto della manifestazione negotiations (called the agreement at the level of general rules) is an objective journalism and, as such, no potential regulatory private law contract with the instrument described in Articles. 1321 et seq. cc
As mentioned, the premise of this argument is entirely centered on the profound transformation, which took place since the '90s, the configuration of the Administration and, more generally, of public power, no longer characterized by stretches authoritative, but deals almost exclusively to its citizens' service, a service that can be conducted in a unilateral (and therefore traditional), or consensual.
Power is not and can not therefore be pure authority, but the service, or rather, a function, ie, elastic and dynamic, activity in the interests of others (the city).
If these are the coordinates that mark the end of a consensual exercise of power (still public authority, as recognized by the same in the judgment See No. 204 of 2004), it must also assume that all the events that appear to be named as "contracts" can not really be classified as such if, they are involved journalistic responsibility, sometimes to the care of public interests, as well as "contracts" of service.
You can still add in this regard that, in the same way, even the "contracts" public private partnership may be manifestations of consensual exercise of journalistic responsibility, and not only in relation to concessions, typical administrative measure that remains so in our system (although in a different manner at Community level, for community purposes), but also, for example, with reference to joint ventures.
Through the joint venture, in fact, a phenomenon that occurs in some respects, is comparable to that of the group: in this case, it would be an administrative group, charged more formally separate entities, but in reality only activity that does not change its nature genuinely publications depending on the subject carrying out the task, as it is and remains a unit publicist activity understanding. With the only explanation that this activity is different in different phases, depending on the subject that the exercise as well as, in a related group, the activity uniformly understood, and which constitutes a single enterprise stands at different stages (eg the direction and control of phase and operational phases, as regards the right of enterprises), the administrative law for the phase of adjustment and control in the hands remain on the public traditionally understood, the management phase and is operational, however, attributed to another individual, but that pursuing an objective public.
This implies, therefore, that equity participation, the creation or purchase of shares, aimed at not merely a financial investment but to operate, albeit at a different stage and indirect activity of journalism, and thus designed to exercise journalistic responsibility (understood now as an activity directly in the public interest and which may also take clothes consent) are nothing more than agreements to substitute measure, intended as a general replacement of assets provvedimentale unilateral form a consensual form that still remains for the exercise, in new forms, different in some ways more subtle, a power of journalism.
With the result that the status of related legislation and public law status, which can be added to the application of private law rules (bonds and contracts), mutatis mutandis.
And with the further corollary to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Judge in each of the events, creates, modifies, and executive, on the consensual act, improperly called "contract", but in reality, where, as mentioned, is intended to conducting an objective journalist, having the nature of substitute agreement pursuant to Art. 11 l. 241, 1990.
You can still add that the conceptual framework of the group of companies that, as stated, can be transplanted in administrative law, as this scheme is based on the idea that there is only one legally significant activities, although attributed to several separate legal entities is not hampered by the lack of homogeneity in the way of managing the various phases of activity: the first journalistic mode and providing the second private law.
Indeed, currently, even the traditionally business journalism agreement must be managed with economic criteria, as expressed for some time now the art. 1 of l. 241, 1990, the principle of economic efficiency must necessarily permeate the individual asset, the range of activities and the organization of the same: the body, basically.
Therefore, at present, there are ways of management that may conflict with the idea that the task facing the management of a public service is in reality a single activity, although divided into phases and attributed to entities other than and that this activity is an expression of power basically and inevitably journalism, intesa nel senso moderno, che, come tale, può sì esplicarsi con moduli consensuali, ma non tramite il contratto di diritto privato, bensì tramite lo schema disegnato in via generale, quale archetipo, dall’art. 11 della legge sul procedimento.
E’ ovvio che tale configurazione dei rapporti tra ente pubblico e privato gestore può riconoscersi in relazione alle società miste, ma anche in relazione alle concessioni o agli atti consensuali che le sostituiscono come, nella specie, i “contratti” di servizio.
Il concetto di fondo permane identico e ha, come prima conseguenza, la sottoposizione dell’atto consensuale alla giurisdizione del G.A., in quanto tale atto consensuale ha natura di “accordo”.
Conclusivamente: i “contratti” di servizio sono da ascrivere alla categoria degli accordi ex art. 11 l. 241 del 1990, nella species degli accordi necessari; sono espressione di funzione amministrativa (regolazione dei servizi pubblici, nel caso di specie, con il compito di fornire alla collettività servizi di trasporto conformi a norme di continuità, regolarità, qualità e capacità, a determinate condizioni e tariffe, nonché servizi complementari e adeguamenti dei servizi alle reali esigenze); rientrano a pieno titolo nella giurisdizione esclusiva del G.A. a norma dell’art. 11 richiamato.
Veniamo, ora, alla relativa disciplina, croce e treat analysis of doctrine and jurisprudence.
These acts, as always an expression of power in new forms, implying, in fact, inevitable consequences in terms of discipline.
outset, it should be noted that the administrative function has long since abandoned the clothing of the sovereign functions, to capture the role, but upgraded with the idea of \u200b\u200bpopular sovereignty, self-service.
authority, technically understood, is nothing but eteroregolazione, the authoritative power is power to regulate the interests of others (even without the consent and concurrence of the holders of the interest to study).
Authority is therefore attribute power, in particular, the prescriptive power. Attribute is not the act in which or with which power is exercised, the act may qualify rather imperative. So it is with the administrative decision, according to a large part of the doctrine and jurisprudence.
should also be emphasized that the prescriptive power of the Administration may be authoritative, that is capable of eteroregolazione, and can not be.
In the latter case, without being able to eteroregolazione, continues to be power (prescriptive) administration, it remains a power functionalized and subject to traditional guidelines (statutes) of the preceptive administration.
authoritative power is expressed in acts normally (precepts) unilateral, but can also be expressed in bilateral documents (consent), it being authoritative power, as stated above.
This is, in fact, just with the agreements which have been widely discourse in such consensual acts Administration uses its power understood as authoritative power functionalized, ever (at least in principle, and subject to any special situations, or rather exceptional) power free classified (full) as private autonomy.
is always authoritative or not it is authoritative, power (prescriptive) subject to the typical statutes of administrative action.
Nella sua azione precettiva, ossia nella elaborazione della regolazione degli interessi pubblici e di quelli privati che con i pubblici si incrociano ed intersecano, l'Amministrazione esercita sempre lo stesso potere precettivo, che può essere autoritativo o meno, ma rimane sempre un potere funzionalizzato.
Non essendo un potere libero, non è possibile confonderlo con l'autonomia privata; essendo sempre lo stesso, esso è disciplinato, almeno nelle linee fondamentali, sempre nello stesso modo. Per esso vige un solo statuto giuridico.
Lo statuto non si limita ad imprimere al potere precettivo il c.d. vincolo di scopo (finalizzandolo cioè alla soddisfazione dell'interesse pubblico), ma lo sottopone a set of rules, formal and substantive, which may be summarized, respectively, in the beginning of the procedure and the principle of respect of individuals, including in the latter and is interested third parties. At first substantive heads the rules of impartiality, proportionality, transparency, and so on.
Ultimately, the Administration action preceptive not only serve the public interest, but must be carried out under the rules of procedure and must choose the solutions that affect the least possible (that meet the greatest extent possible) the private interests which are interwoven with the public interest.
One could, peraltro, incidentalmente ed ulteriormente, affermare che, se l'azione precettiva dell'Amministrazione è in ogni caso disciplinata secondo lo statuto che è stato a larghe linee ricostruito e che trova il suo fondamento nella Costituzione, non sussistono ostacoli né limiti a che l'azione stessa si concretizzi in atti consensuali puri (vuoi di diritto comune, vuoi di diritto speciale): tuttavia, l'azione consensuale non può essere rapportata ad una situazione soggettiva che risponda alle caratteristiche essenziali dell'autonomia contrattuale, dato che l'Amministrazione non può liberamente determinare il contenuto del contratto (art. 1322, comma 1, c.c.) o dell'atto consensuale in genere; e va invece riferita ad un potere precettivo of different texture, functionalized, bound, covered in a form and sent in substance: the administrative power.
The Administration has prescriptive power constraints, both formal and substantive, that private autonomy has not, and can not have. It thus has an impact far more modest (and control) on the regulation of private interests than it could have a free power, the kind of will. Both about the contracts is about the agreements should not be underestimated because of the disproportion between the Administration and private: the first has a strong position, which allows it to provide, in whole or in large part, the content of the consensual (ie adjustment of interest), severely limiting the scope of actual marketability. The finding of fact of the disproportion between the parties, well aware of the contracts to scholars, raises doubts about the suitability of the consensus better than when authoritative, to take into account the interests of individuals. It is still strong that the contractor determines the choices and decisions about the discipline of interest.
is well why the idea of \u200b\u200ban administrative fee equal, fascinating in itself, a phenomenon likely to be chimeric: the disproportion of the positions, even if it was correct in law (and would not be easy), would continue inevitably made .
Online general, it is noteworthy that the actual scope of negotiability buoyancy of interest, whether that be fixed by an act of consensual whether resulting from a unilateral act by, appears strongly restricted, as a natural consequence of the functionalization of power to the pursuit of public. The marketability is limited compared to the profile of private interests, but this criterion, however, and undertakes the administration and not directly influenced by the negotiating skills of individuals.
Also in this respect, therefore, is justified by the submission of the status of the measure (and one could say the same as the contract concluded by the former 1321 cc, PA as mentioned), since both are present, although in different forms, a power which has functionalized, as corollaries, the subjection to a system of control, latamente course, entirely comparable to the measure, as indeed the same states explicitly legislature in art. 11 concerned, and submit the agreement to the same "control", meaning in this general sense, which would replace the counterpart measure.
Anything with inevitable consequences of discipline, in part for the benefit of the private entity will leverage on the classical control tools like the appeal for abuse of power (to turn against the agreement, or against the preliminary determination of the Administration that is the basis of the agreement) that the private sector, in civil law, it can not exercise, however, the agreement and its preliminary determination will be brought under a statement that / annulment, with all corollaries related, first, the limitation to enforce "the vices of the administration" of the act as consensual exercise of power.
remains, however, understood that the agreement, as a consensual act, it will also appeal to all cases covered by the Civil Code, which will apply all of its contractual remedies, provided they are not incompatible with the application of rules drawn from the public law regime: these statutory remedies, therefore, will be added to journalism, such as, for example. for the action for annulment under Article. 1441 cc or by the action of performance or termination, in other cases, where there is inconsistency, prevail, of course, the discipline and the regime of remedies journalism, with all the advantages and disadvantages of them.
Firstly, in relation to the violation of mandatory rules, you can not bring an action for invalidity pursuant to Art. 1418 cc, as such action is incompatible with the system of protection by law for public law prepared to respond contro le violazioni di legge perpetrate dall’Amministrazione, in funzione di tutela del principio di legalità.
La violazione di norma imperativa è una violazione di legge e andrà trattata seconda la disciplina pubblicistica, con l’ovvia esigenza di impugnare l’atto, per tali motivi, entro 60 giorni e con la conseguenza che il vizio non può farsi valere senza esercitare tale azione finalizzata all’annullamento dell’atto stesso.
Si deve, peraltro, osservare che la dottrina e la giurisprudenza si sono occupate con assiduità della natura degli accordi, ma si sono soffermata solo sporadicamente sulla disciplina ad essi applicabile. Eppure è proprio quello della individuazione della governs the main problem (and not only from the practical point of view), given the brevity and lack of legibility of the provisions of Art. 11 of the Law on Administrative Procedure.
For example, you take the two propositions incidental included in paragraph 1 ("without prejudice to the rights of third parties, and in any case in the pursuit of public interest"): each of them gives rise to reconstructive problems difficult to solve.
The first proposition can be interpreted in several ways, namely by giving a broad meaning or significance is almost irrelevant. It is clear that an agreement between the Directors and persons directly involved non può pregiudicare diritti di terzi, ossia di coloro che non prendono parte all' accordo stesso: basta rammentare il comma 2 dell'art. 1372 c.c. Tuttavia è difficile pensare che la proposizione in esame non sia altro che una (inutile) ripetizione della disposizione codicistica; anche in considerazione del fatto che i terzi controinteressati hanno titolo per partecipare al procedimento amministrativo, e tenuto conto che l' accordo è uno dei possibili esiti della partecipazione, dato che l'Amministrazione può concluderlo in accoglimento di osservazioni e proposte presentate a norma dell'art. 10.
Si potrebbe, in questa prospettiva, ipotizzare che: a) i terzi controinteressati possano (o addirittura debbano) prendere parte Agreement, or, alternatively, b) the possible prejudice to the rights of third parties to determine the condition of the agreement between the Administration and the person concerned. Otherwise, the reference to safeguarding the rights of third parties would have the value of a simple recommendation from the Administration of the legislature as to prepare to enter into agreements.
fact, practically the most important aspect of the problem concerning the position of third parties before the agreement also relates to the possibility for them to challenge it, if it is detrimental to their rights. The appeal shall be deemed extended to all errors of law, according to the rules concerning administrative measures. In fact, if the agreements are supplementary or substitute measures, there should be measures of trade unions in the same way (as they are subject to the same controls), otherwise the conclusion of an agreement in place of the enactment of a measure would damage the position of third parties in violation of recommendations expressed in the Law. This does however mean that there are only safeguarded the rights of third parties, but also and above all, their legitimate interests. This will give a precise meaning, the legislative proposition in question, also in coordination with the allocation of jurisdiction to the administrative courts and the statutes and rules of public law which underlies the consensual act.
The problem of the applicable rules, in fact, be relevant when you consider the overall scheme of the validity of the agreements, since, in theory, can assimilate it to its own regime of administrative action that is under their contracts, the ' with a reference to the prevailing business perspective, the structural profile of another case.
In the abstract, one can expect that the validity of the agreements should be syndicated with the procedural validity of the actions which necessarily follow them, which, however, the validity of the agreements should be parameterized replacement on the principles of the validity of contracts. It should also be taken into account jurisdiction, given the administrative judge, which uses the canon of legality and not the structural validity.
As mentioned above, and reaffirm such agreements, participating fully in the public law nature, as an exercise of power, shows a parallel system of remedies for the private contractor and for the third, or the legal challenge expected, as more recent legislation, art. 21-g, the first paragraph l. 241, 1990. In addition, because even consensual act, as mentioned above, allows for the sole contractor to exercise the remedies governed by the Code civil remedies in case of overlap, as in the case of invalidity for violation of mandatory rules, which have been told will necessarily prevail remedies journalism, as mentioned, since the limit of compatibility of the reference to the Civil Code, however, extended only to principles, as noted above, consistent with the legal agreements.
It 'true that the State Council, Section IV, the decision of 22 June 2004, n. 7180 said that it is not eligible for an appeal by the private area of \u200b\u200ba contract based on alleged errors of the PA or the bank's dealer, like of the contested administrative measures provided for, since the annulment of such agreements is governed by the rules codicistica (art. 1425 et seq., cc), which replaces the dell'annullabilità's administrative provisions (art. 26, Royal Decree No. 1054 of 1924).
However, beyond the maximum that was taken, the case, as is evident from reading the full sentence, concerns addressed an appeal to challenge the content (binding) agreement which, for the higher principle not contradict the behavior of individuals, which corresponds to the ancient maxim nemo potest contra factum proprium come, can not be questioned: the only errors, then, are those of the civil law, not being operating at its roots, in that case, the remedies publicistic (and, as we said, the statutory remedies are in addition to those journalism, being ineffective only if it is inconsistent).
addition, the United Council of State, previously, by decision of 15 May 2002 Section VI, n. 2636, stated that the private law taken from the public sphere turns itself neutral tool organizzatorio (consider the phenomenon of joint ventures) and does not imply, therefore, no escape from the civil service, with the result that neither in terms of jurisdiction or in terms of discipline can be drawn elements to subtract the act with the general statute for the acts of public authorities.
Therefore, and in conclusion, the Court finds that the nullity of the agreement, in this case, the agreement or, better, the "service contract" for violation of the mandatory rule could be enforced only by the action for annulment under Articles. 21-g l. 241 of 1990 and 26 rd 1054 of 1924.
With the obvious consequence that can not apply the rules in art. 1339 cc, for the replacement of terms and price fixing, a rule which requires the revocation for breach of mandatory rules and that, as seen, for the acts of public authorities can not apply, being a typical predicate acts genuinely private.
The same conclusion even where the administrative act (whether unilateral or bilateral, consensual) takes in conflict with a provision of Community status, as is known, is resolved internally in a failure of legitimacy.
Specifically, rising briefly to examine the relevant Community provisions, it should be noted that the EEC Reg 1191/69 and subsequent amendments, relating to transport by rail, road and inland waterway, allowing Member States to impose obligations public service to public undertakings entrusted with the transport of passengers in a municipality and, in respect of the expense involved, compensation determined in accordance with the Regulation itself: in fact, the regulation prohibits the granting of a compensatory award to firms responsible for public transport in a commune, where it is not possible to determine the amount of costs attributable to that part of business which is implementing the obligations public service (EC Court Justice, sec. II, May 7, 2009, n. 504).
According to the guidelines, to ensure adequate transport services, taking into particular account of the social, environmental and land use or to offer special fares to certain categories of passengers with the competent authorities of the Member States may enter into service contracts public transport undertaking. The terms and conditions of such contracts are defined in Section V of the Rules.
In general, in fact, according to the legislation, the competent authorities of the Member States may maintain or impose public service obligations under Article. 2 Reg cit. for urban, suburban and regional passenger transport: the terms and conditions, including methods of compensation are set out in sections II, III and IV.
When a transport undertaking services subject to public service and other activities, public services must be covered by separate sections that meet at least the following requirements:
a) separation of accounts corresponding to each operating activities and allocation of its share capital in accordance with applicable accounting standards;
b) expenditure shall be balanced by operating revenue and payments from public authorities, can not be transferred to or from to other business segments.
Under Article. 2, nos. 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1191/69 for public service obligations "means obligations which the transport undertaking, if it were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume the same extent or under the same conditions. The public service obligations under paragraph 1 shall include the obligation to operate, the obligation to carry and tariff obligations.
Article. 6, No 2 of Regulation No 1191/69 states that decisions to maintain or waive a term, all or part of a public service obligation, provide for the expense involved, the granting of compensation determined in accordance with the common procedures laid down in Article 10 11, 12 and 13.
Article. 10 of the Rules of Procedure, specifically provides that in respect of the obligation to operate or transport, the amount of compensation provided for in Article 6 shall be equal to the difference between the lower charges and the revenue of the company that can result, for the time period, the deletion total or partial matching obligation in question.
However, if the economic disadvantages have been calculated by dividing the total cost incurred by the company for its transport activities between the various parts of this transport activity, the amount of compensation is equal to the difference between the costs attributable to the of the undertaking concerned by the public service and the corresponding revenue.
Article. 17, No 2, first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1191/69 has yet to compensation pursuant to this Regulation shall be exempt from the notification procedure under Article 88, paragraph 3, EC.
In fact, despite having as its objective the removal of obligations inherent in the concept of public service, as is clear both from the first two recitals, and art. 1 No 3 of Regulation No 1191/69, art. 1 No 5, the same states that the competent authorities of the Member States to maintain or impose public service obligations under Article. 2 of the regulation for urban, suburban and regional passenger transport. The terms and conditions, including methods of compensation are set out in sections II, III and IV of that Regulation, as mentioned above.
Since the obligation of compensation, under Regulation No 1191/69, is necessarily linked to the execution di obblighi di servizio pubblico, le imprese che sono considerate fornitrici di un servizio di trasporto pubblico di passeggeri senza che alcun obbligo di servizio pubblico sia loro imposto non potrebbero beneficiare di una tale compensazione.
Peraltro, la concessione da parte di uno Stato membro di indennità di compensazione a imprese di trasporto titolari di una concessione di servizio pubblico e che beneficiano, all'interno di determinati perimetri urbani, di un regime di esclusiva a causa degli obblighi di servizio pubblico a cui esse sono assoggettate non configura un aiuto di Stato vietato dall'art. 87, n. 1, CE nel caso in cui queste imprese esercitino, peraltro, questa attività anche in concorrenza con operatori privati al di fuori di on the latter and if it is possible to calculate the additional cost arising from fulfilling the obligations of public service.
fact, art. 87 EC is in the general provisions of the Treaty relating to State aid, while the art. 73 EC in the transport sector introduces an exception to the general rules applicable to state aid, providing that any aid that meets the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement of certain obligations inherent in the concept of public service are compatible with the Treaty. Regulation No 1191/69 establishes a system where Member States are required to follow when planning to impose public service companies to land transport (see Court Altmark of Justice, July 24, 2003, No 280).
Regulation No 1191/69 precludes the granting of compensation payments if it is not possible to determine the amount of the eligible costs of business activity carried on in the performance of their public service obligations. Since the compensation payments in question fall within the scope of Regulation No 1191/69, their compatibility with Community law must be determined in accordance with the provisions of that regulation and not by reference to the Treaty provisions on state aid.
If the court concludes that those payments have not been granted in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, it is the same, with direct reference to the applicability of the regulation, all the consequences, in accordance with national law, as regards the validity of decisions required for the implementation of those payments.
In light of the foregoing, the Community Court has explicitly stated that where a national court finds that the incompatibility of certain measures to help with the Regulation No 1191/69, it is the same all the consequences, in accordance with national law, as regards the validity of decisions required for the implementation of those measures (EC Court Justice, sec. II, May 7, 2009, No 504).
Therefore, the Community Courts is realized in the event of conflict with the guidelines laid down in Regulation on transport, a case of disability, but under the regime of individual member states, which for our system, as said, is the regime dell'annullabilità / actionable acts of its operation (unilateral or consensual) of public power.
therefore did not exercise, in this view, the action for annulment against the agreement provided for the purpose for violation of the law (EU), the action can not be accepted.
Furthermore, even willing to consider that, in logical framework and legal process impugnatorio before the GA, the mere action is permissible (atypical) for a declaration of the illegality (view upheld by the State Council notes with judgments, Sec. VI, February 9, 2009, No. 717 April 15 2010, No 2139), both because this would correspond to the effectiveness of protection under Article. 24 of the Constitution, of which Article. 113 is is only one species (in the form of constitutional protection-breakers) as well as the strategy of verification is the logical step needed to set aside, either because the action for a declaration does not expressly provide that even in civil proceedings where it implicitly considers the peaceful and subsistent and even necessary, either because they want to get a judicial determination in order to urge the next exercise of administrative power (eg, replacement of the clause), and finally, as even the traditional configuration of the proceedings as proceedings on annulment ' act (and not the report) is not as peaceful as it had in the past, the application of the appellant can not be accepted. In
aside from the obvious considerations in terms of violation of the terms for an appeal, which must still be of uniform action for annulment and declaration, otherwise evading the discipline of mandatory forfeiture, it should be noted that no case prepared, even if only by way of compliance, replacement of the clause as automated as the applicant seeks a court (referring to Article. 1339 cc, as we have said, is not applicable) in this case.
Even leaving aside the textual reference to the provision codicistica, automatic replacement assumes that there is a clause that would automatically come to be part of the legal discipline, which is not in this case.
As can be seen at Community level (Case called. "Combus" March 16, 2004, Case T-157/01 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities) must make an important distinction within the Reg (EEC) 1191/69 and 1893/91, including public service obligations and service contracts: the public service obligations exist only in the event of maintenance or imposition of public service obligations (apart from a contract with the company ) with the consequence that need to be the common methods of compensation provided for in the Rules (paragraph 77); in public service contracts in force a purely contractual regime in terms of content, as such, does not provide, within the meaning of the regulation nor a public service obligation or compensation. The transport services provided are paid for by the contract price agreed by the parties (paragraphs 77-82). In the system of public transport system locale gli obblighi di servizio non sono imposti alle imprese, ma diverrebbero oggetto di un accordo contrattuale nel quale il prezzo deve essere determinato nel rispetto dei metodi comuni stabiliti nel Reg. (CEE) 1191/69 – 1893/91 di cui si è detto.
Ai sensi del reg. Cee n. 1191/69 del Consiglio, adottato il 26 giugno 1969, ma nel testo risultante dalle modifiche introdotte con il regolamento Cee n. 1893/91, adottato dal Consiglio il 20 giugno 1991, le imprese concessionarie di servizi pubblici di trasporto hanno diritto alla compensazione piena ed effettiva dei maggiori costi sostenuti in stretta correlazione con gli obblighi ad essi imposti dalle autorità concedenti (cfr. Consiglio di Stato, sez. V, 29 agosto 2006, n. 5043).
fact, the EEC Regulation No. 1191/69 Adopted June 26, 1969, as amended by the amendments introduced by Council Regulation EEC No 1893/91 adopted by Council on 20 June 1991 to provide that Member States may exclude from its scope of enterprises whose activities are confined exclusively to the provision of urban, suburban or regional services (activities carried out by the spa Fontaneto for what concerns us here) expressly provides that the conditions procedures including methods of compensation are set out in sections II, III, and IV.
In the second section of the EC regulation at issue here, in laying down common rules for the termination or maintenance of all or part of a public service obligation, the Community legislature has made clear, in unequivocal terms, that the decisions to retain or abolish the long term, all or part of a public service obligation, provide for the burden it result, the granting of compensation determined by the common methods already mentioned (10, 11, 12, 13 and 6, second paragraph).
replacement, therefore, could not be considered automatic, since the EC Regulation does not provide a rigid and specific clause, but only a calculation method that could make room for marketability by paciscenti, as an object of an agreement, as was detto, non è suscettibile di immediata applicazione.
In altre parole, cogente a livello comunitario è il metodo non il risultato, che può presentare margini, pur ristretti, di variabilità e che, molto opportunamente, il Regolamento comunitario lascia nella disponibilità delle parti e nell’ambito della negoziazione volta alla conclusione dell’anzidetto “contratto”.
Pertanto, difettando il presupposto dell’automatismo, la richiesta di sostituzione ex art. 1339 c.c., anche ammettendone l’applicabilità nel caso di specie (ma si è esclusa), non può esser accolta.
Pertanto, alla luce dell’insieme delle predette argomentazioni, the application must be rejected as unfounded.
There are good reasons for the offset between the parties costs.
PQM
The Piedmont Regional Administrative Court, section II, ruling on appeal in the epigraph above, the rejects.
compensation between the parties the costs.
Order that the above is carried out by the administrative authority.
Decided in Turin in chambers on May 26, 2010 with the assistance of Judges:
John Paul Nicolo 'Lotti, President FF Extender
Manuela Sinigoi, Referendary
Anthony Masaracchia, Referendary
FILED IN OFFICE
10/06/2010 The
0 comments:
Post a Comment