jurisdiction over state property Allocation of jurisdiction in terms of state property concessions
State Council, sect. VI, No. 586 Decision 03.02.2009 brief but effective pronunciation n. 586/2009 of the judges of the Palazzo Spada on the division of jurisdiction over state property concessions.
The Council of State considers that there is the jurisdiction of the GA in a dispute relating to grants of state property when it concerns a decision with which the administration, in the exercise of authoritative power, has restated the quantum of fee to be paid.
While the TAR, declining its jurisdiction, he said the knowledge of the AGO, on the basis of the provisions of art. 5, paragraph 2, L. 1034/1971, the Forum and succinctly in stating that: According to established case law (see Cass., Sez.Un. No 411/2007), "the disputes relating to allowances, fees and other undisclosed fees, concessions on administrative jurisdiction of ordinary courts are those marked with a purely content asset, relating to the internal relationship between licensor and licensee pa well, content in respect of which the opposition between parties is likely to be outlined according to the combination of "duty-claim", which assumes no major power intervention reserved for pa for the protection of public interests. " If, however, the dispute falls outside these limits, involving the verification of how the administration has used its powers authoritative concession affecting the relationship, the conflict between p.a. e concessionario si configura secondo il binomio “ potere-interesse” e viene attratto nella sfera di competenza giurisdizionale del giudice amministrativo.
Pertanto, sussiste la giurisdizione del GA atteso che la controversia coinvolge la verifica di come la P.A. abbia esercitato i suoi poteri autoritativi incidendo sul rapporto concessorio.
(DA Altalex, 11 febbraio 2009)
Consiglio di Stato
Sezione VI
Decisione 3 febbraio 2009, n. 586
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA
IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO
Il Consiglio di Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Sesta)
ha pronunciato la seguente
DECISIONE
sul ricorso in appello n. 8807/2003, proposto da C. A., rappresentato and assisted by Malone and Silvio Francesco Vannicelli, address for service in the office of the latter in Rome at Via Varrone, No 9;
against the City of Bocenago, in the person of the mayor pro tempore, represented and assisted by prof. Stella By Paul Richter and Paul Fior, address for service in Rome at the first study in Rome, Viale G. Mazzini, No 11;
the Autonomous Province of Trento, in the person of the President pro tempore, is not constituted in these proceedings;
for reform and cancellation of the decision of the Regional Court of Administrative Justice of the Trentino-Alto Adige in Trento, n . 187/2002, made between equals;
view of the action with annexes;
Since the memory of formal proceedings of the City of Bocenago;
Given the statement of defense notified by the appellant in support of its positions;
Given all the acts of the case;
Speaker at the public hearing of November 7, 2008 The Director Roberto Giovagnoli, and also heard and represented Vannicelli Stella Richter
FACT AND REASONS FOR DECISION
The facts and legal considerations:
- that the Court of First Instance declined jurisdiction under Article . 5, paragraph 2, of ln 1034/1971, which gives the jurisdiction of ordinary courts in disputes relating to allowances, fees and other fees related to a rapporto di concessione di beni demaniali;
- che, secondo giurisprudenza consolidata (cfr. Cass. Sez. Un. n. 411/2007), “le controversie concernenti indennità, canoni ed altri corrispettivi riservate, in materia di concessioni amministrative, alla giurisdizione del giudice ordinario sono quelle contrassegnate da un contenuto meramente patrimoniale, attinente al rapporto interno tra p.a. concedente e concessionario del bene, contenuto in ordine al quale la contrapposizione tra le parti si presta ad essere schematizzata secondo il binomio “obbligo-pretesa”, senza che assuma rilievo un potere di intervento riservato alla p.a. per la tutela di interessi generali”. Qualora, invece, la controversia esuli da tali limiti, coinvolgendo verification of how the administration has used its powers authoritative concession affecting the relationship, the conflict between AR and the dealer is configured according to the binomial "power-interest" and is attracted into the sphere of jurisdiction of administrative courts;
- which, in applying these principles, in this case must be affirmed the administrative jurisdiction, as an object of the proceedings is the resolution by which the City of Bocenago, in the exercise of authoritative power, has riderminato the quantum of the fee to be paid;
- which, therefore, the decision must be annulled by court appealed to the Court of First Instance to give rise to substantive proceedings;
- that the costs, even to this degree, you will be taken when defining the proceedings, in light of the outcome of the dispute;
PQM
The Council of State in the courts, the Sixth Chamber, not saying definitively accept the appeal and to the effect, with reference to quash the decision appealed to the court of first instance.
charges to the final. Sort
that this decision is made by the administration.
Decided in Rome, November 7, 2008 by the Council of State in the courts - Sec. VI - in the Council Chamber, with the intervention of the Lords: Claudio
VARRONE President Paul
Buonvino Councillor Dominic
CAFINI Consigliere
Bruno Rosario POLITO Consigliere
Roberto GIOVAGNOLI Consigliere Est.
Presidente
CLAUDIO VARRONE
Consigliere Segretario
ROBERTO GIOVAGNOLI STEFANIA MARTINES
DEPOSITATA IN SEGRETERIA IL 03/02/2009.
