Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Romeo Gestioni s.p.a. challenging the validity of contract resolutions following an illegitimate public procurement process for a Multiservizio Tecnologico project in Campania's healthcare structures. The resolution was issued by the administration (determinazione dirigenziale 146/2024) in response to Council of State's annulment (sentenza 4701/24) of the bidding procedure. The dispute centers on whether the administrative court (giudice amministrativo) has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under art. 133, comma 1, lett. e) of the administrative code and art. 108 of the Public Contracts Decree 50/2016.
Issues
- The third issue examines the principle of res judicata, where prior administrative decisions (TAR Campania and Consiglio di Stato) have already ruled on the jurisdiction in this matter. The court must determine if these rulings preclude the ordinary court from adjudicating the dispute, thereby affirming the administrative court's exclusive authority based on the principle of judicial finality.
- The second issue involves art. 122 of the administrative code, which states that the continued validity of a contractual relationship after the annulment of a procurement process is only permissible if the procedural defect does not require the re-launch of the procedure and a subrogation request has been filed. The court must assess whether the contracts in question are automatically invalidated due to the procurement annulment, thus necessitating administrative court jurisdiction.
- The first issue centers on the applicability of art. 133, comma 1, lett. e) of the administrative code, which grants exclusive administrative jurisdiction for disputes involving public procurement. This includes claims for the invalidation of contracts following the annulment of a procurement process, as well as any resulting damages claims. The court must determine if the current case falls under this provision, thereby precluding the ordinary court's jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The court determines that the resolution of the agreements by the administrative authority was a necessary and unilaterally exercised power in response to the Council of State's annulment, thereby affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative judge under Article 108 and 122 of the public procurement code.
- The court declares the jurisdiction of the administrative judge in the dispute regarding the public procurement contracts and orders Romeo Gestioni to pay litigation costs, which are liquidated at €10,200.00 per counterparty, including €200.00 for expenses and 15% for general costs and legal fees.
Remedies
- The court declares the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative judge in relation to the matter of public tenders and the resolution of contracts following the annulment of the bidding procedure.
- Romeo Gestioni is condemned to pay litigation costs of €10,200.00 to each counterparty, including €200.00 for expenses and 15% for general costs and legal fees, as determined by the court.
Monetary Damages
10200.00
Legal Principles
The decision relied on the principle that the administrative judge has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning public contracts invalidated due to illegitimate tender procedures, as outlined in art. 133, comma 1, lett. e) cod. proc. amm. It further established that the resolution of such contracts by public authorities constitutes an exercise of public self-help (autotutela), excluding ordinary judicial jurisdiction. The court referenced art. 108 d.lgs. 50/2016 and art. 122 cod. proc. amm. to affirm that unilateral administrative decisions to terminate illegal contracts fall under administrative law, with prior judgments (T.A.R. Campania and Consiglio di Stato) reinforcing this jurisdictional framework.
Precedent Name
- Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite 12864/2020
- Consiglio di Stato, Sentenza 4701/2024
- Consiglio di Stato, Sentenza 4385/2025
Cited Statute
- Codice dei contratti pubblici
- Legge 24/1990
- Codice di Procedura Amministrativa
Judge Name
- Maria Acierno
- Marco Marulli
Passage Text
- 3. Tanto precisato, venendo al merito delle declinate istanze, va detto che entrambi i ricorsi sono fondati e meritano accoglimento.
- 5. [...] la determinazione dirigenziale 146/2024 [...] «costituisce, indubbiamente, espressione di un potere autoritativo della P.A. e non manifestazione di volontà contrattuale nell'ambito di un rapporto iure privatorum».
- 7. Le spese seguono la soccombenza e si liquidano come da dispositivo.