Ordinary Jurisdiction and Public Service Concession: Commentary on Judgment No. 15383 of 2024

Judgment No. 15383 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications on the applicable jurisdiction regarding the concession of public services, especially during the intermediate phase between the award and the signing of the contract. In particular, the case at hand involves the revocation of the award by the administration, which ordered the enforcement of the surety guarantee, leading to a dispute from the awarded party.

The Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the public administration revoked the award of a service contract, claiming that the awarded party had submitted an unsustainable economic offer. However, the appellant challenged the legitimacy of this revocation, arguing that the administration had violated the principles of fairness and good faith, as the tender notice contained incorrect information regarding the necessary historical interventions. This led the awarded party to formulate an offer that, in light of the correct information, would have proven unsustainable.

Concession of public service - Intermediate phase between the award and the signing of the contract - Declaration of forfeiture by the public administration and enforcement of guarantees - Challenges by the contractor and claim for damages - Jurisdiction of the ordinary judge - Basis - Case. In the matter of the concession of a public service, the request for a declaration of illegitimacy of the act by which the administration, before signing the contract, revoked the award, ordering the enforcement of the surety guarantee, and the consequent claim for damages fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, where the administration is accused of violating not the rules of the competitive procedure, which may lead to the exclusion of the competitor from the competition, but the behavioral obligations of fairness and good faith, as it concerns issues that affect the executive phase of the relationship, even though it did not result in the signing of the contract. (Principle applied with reference to the request aimed at establishing that the contracting authority had violated the duties of fairness and good faith, by indicating in the tender notice a historical fact of the interventions understated compared to the actual one, leading the company to formulate an unsustainable economic offer, which then resulted in the revocation of the award before the signing of the contract).

The Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge

The Court established that the jurisdiction for challenging the legitimacy of the act of revocation of the award and the enforcement of the surety guarantee falls under the ordinary judge. This is fundamental as it concerns issues that pertain not only to the competitive procedure but also to the observance of the principles of good faith and fairness, which are essential for the proper conduct of a public contractual relationship.

  • Relevance of good faith in tender procedures.
  • Impact of incorrect information on the behavior of the awarded party.
  • Possibility of compensation for damages resulting from unlawful acts by the administration.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 15383 of 2024 fits into a line of jurisprudence that emphasizes the importance of fairness and good faith in the relationships between public administration and private entities. This legal precedent could have a significant impact on future procurement procedures and the management of public contracts, strengthening the protection of economic operators against unfair behaviors by contracting authorities.

Bianucci Law Firm