Thus, the principal is liable by reason of the organizational role he or she plays, i.e., as a result of a special relationship that binds him or her to the material author of the harmful act.

The provision is actually based on a fiction that reflects the principle “cuius commoda, eius et incommoda”: that is, the activity of the principal benefits the principal and that is why the system imputes it to the latter.

There are three prerequisites required for the operation of Article 2049 of the Civil Code: i) that a third party has suffered unjust damage, as a result of a wrongful act; ii) that the wrongful act was caused by a “servant or clerk”; iii) that there is a relationship between the damage and the “duties” entrusted to the clerk (so-called “necessary relationship of occasionality”).

The Public Administration can also be held liable as a result of the wrongful act, committed by public servants and employees.

This liability is grounded in the relationship of organic immedesimation: the state and public bodies act through their organs, which do not constitute separate subjects, but organic articulations of the bodies in which they identify themselves.

Therefore, the P.A. is immediately and directly liable for the wrongful acts of its officials and employees, whatever the duties performed by the latter (conceptual or orderly; intellectual or material).

For such liability to arise, however, it is necessary that the conduct of the public employee be in some way referable to the Entity. In other words, the P.A. is liable under Articles 28 Const. and 2049 Civil Code only when the performance of public functions has been “condicio sine qua non” of the fact producing the damage.

However, the link of occasionality is broken when it is proven that the agent's behavior (intentional or negligent) is not directed to the achievement of the institutional purposes proper to the office, but is determined by strictly personal and selfish motives, such as to exclude any connection of necessary occasionality between the duties entrusted to him and the activity productive of the damage.

For further discussion:

- Cass. Civ., SS.UU., no. 13246/2019;

- Cass. Civ., no. 865/2024.

At the end of the procedure, the Contracting Authority issued a proposal for provisional award, in favor of the economic operator who had submitted the best bid.

However, at the outcome of the checks provided for under Article 75, Presidential Decree No. 445 of 2000, the Agency revoked the provisional award, as it was ascertained that the successful bidder had a criminal conviction decree against him (for the crime of land invasion), which was not declared in the administrative documentation.

The economic operator decided, therefore, to appeal the revocation measure because - in its opinion - the Commission had awarded the lot on the grounds of the economic convenience of the bid submitted, regardless of the untrue information found in the attached statement in lieu of certification.

In Judgment No. 3591/2024, the Regional Administrative Court for the Region of Sicily, Catania branch, rejected the appeal, for the following reasons.

Reasons for the decision

According to the judges, the provisional award is an endo-procedural act, which determines a not-yet-final choice of the successful bidder.

Therefore, it falls within the discretionary power of the Administration to revoke it, assessable in terms of mere expediency and convenience, the exercise of which disregards the application of Art. 21 - quinquies of Law No. 241 of 1990, which requires for the exercise of revocation the existence of concrete reasons of public interest, such as to make the continuation of the tender operations inappropriate.

In addition, the prevailing jurisprudential orientation - according to which forfeiture for false statements applies only in cases where it is such as to causally affect the adoption of the measure - cannot be applied in the present case, since, the operator since the call for tenders had been made aware of the obligation to declare that he had not been convicted of any criminal offenses.

For further discussion:

- Judgment No. 3591/2024, the T.A.R. for the Region of Sicily, Catania detached section;

- Articles 45, 46 and 75, Presidential Decree No. 445 of 2000.

The integration of MBB into Inser is not just an acquisition, but a strategic opportunity to strengthen our ability to offer specialized advice and tailored insurance solutions. Through this, we will be able to serve even more clients, ensuring expertise and reliability in an increasingly complex market.

Who is MBB Insurance Broker?

Founded in 2002, MBB Insurance Broker was born from the merger of two historical Bergamasque insurance brokerage companies, active since the 1980s. Over time, the company has established itself as one of the leading independent insurance brokers in the province of Bergamo, with a strong focus on:

- Companies;

- Public entities;

- Professionals and individuals;

- Construction companies.

Integration into Inser: new opportunities for the market

MBB's entry into Inser brings concrete benefits for clients:

- greater ability to negotiate with insurance companies;

- an even more specialized risk management team;

- innovation in services, with digital solutions and targeted consulting;

- strengthened territorial presence, in the operational headquarters in Bergamo.

As of these days, MBB staff completed the move to Inser's Bergamo office, thus consolidating the operational union between the two entities.

A welcome aboard to our new colleagues!