Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Administrative Cooperation in the Public Contracts and Service Sectors for the Progress of European Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Democratic Institutions and Administrations

  • 248 Accesses

Abstract

Administrative cooperation might become a strategic tool for the European integration and the effectiveness of citizens’ rights. As such, it requires actions to support, coordinate, and supplement Member States’ activities in order to develop integrated networks of national and European public administrations. An integrated system of mutual-benefit interactions among public administrations within the European framework might help to develop common experiences for the effective implementation of the EU provisions on public contracts and services. By overcoming National borders as well as legal and linguistic barriers, a similar model of cooperation could contribute to innovate the National organizational models pursuing the best solutions through innovative economic operators and for the benefit of citizens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—TFEU arts. 6 and 197.

  2. 2.

    Armstrong (2002), p. 231; Galetta (2010a), pp. 191–202 and in Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 2009/6, 1689–1698.; Lottini (2012), p. 131 and ff.; and Pizzetti (2000), p. 331 and ff. E.C.J. 10 February 2000, FTS, C-202/97, Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd. v. Bestuur van het Landelijk instituut sociale verzekeringen; E.C.J. Presidential ordinance, 19 April 2005, C-521/2004, Tillack v. EC Commission.

  3. 3.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—TFEU arts. 6, pp. 74–76 and 197.

  4. 4.

    Chiti (2012), p. 19 and ff; Macchia (2010), Ibid., p. 87.

  5. 5.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—TFEU art. 6.

  6. 6.

    The forms of cooperation allow for the application of EU law and related policies: Hofmann (2008), p. 31. On the public procurement sector: Racca (2010), pp. 119–133.

  7. 7.

    In Italy, the principle of adequacy is set out in the Constitution, Art. 118(1).

  8. 8.

    See, EU Commission, Commission of 3 March 2010—Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth COM(2010) 2020 final.

  9. 9.

    Sorace (2010) cit., pp. 82 and ff.

  10. 10.

    Cavallo Perin et al. (2016). Racca (2015), cit., p. 489 et seq. and Racca (2014a), p. 11 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Chiti (2011), p. 163 et seq; Id. Chiti (2012), cit., p. 19 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Cfr. Turk (2009), p. 218; Deirdre Curtin (2007), pp. 523–541, and Lottini (2012), cit., p. 129 et seq.

  13. 13.

    TFEU, art. 298: “(1) In carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration. (2) In compliance with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment adopted on the basis of Article 336, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish provisions to that end”. Cfr. Schwarze (2012), pp. 297–298; EU Parliament, Towards an EU Regulation on Administrative Procedure?, 2010, in http://www.europarl.europa.eu. Art. 41, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union codifies the principle—deriving from the Court of Justice—not qualifying good administration as a principle governing the actions of the administration, but as a general principle of law (J. Schwarze, Ibid., 298). The right to a good administration “is one of the general principles of the rule of law common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States” [and in which they find expression rights such as the] “right of diligent and impartial treatment of a complaint” (E.C.J., 30 January 2002, case T-54/99 Max.Mobil v. Commission Racc. II-313, par. 48 and 49) enshrined in the law even before the entry into force of the Charter (E.C.J., 18 September 1992, T-24/90, Automec v. Commission, Racc. II-2223, § 79, 15 September1998, T-95/96, Gestevisión Telecinco v. Commission, Racc. II-3407, § 53). See also E.C.J., 22 February 2005, C-141/02, Commission v. Max.Mobil, Racc. I-1283, par. 72; Nieto-Garrido and Delgado (2007), p. 26; Lenaerts (2004), pp. 317–343.

  14. 14.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 41. Rabinovici (2012), p. 149 et seq; Trimarchi (2011), p. 537 et seq.; Ponce Solé (2011), Part 2, p. 133 et seq.; Cartabia (2010), p. 221 et seq.; Galetta (2010b), p. 601 et seq.; Perfetti (2010), p. 789; Trimarchi Banfi (2007), pp. 49–86; Chiti (2005), p. 3940 and Nicoletti (2006), p. 776 et seq.

  15. 15.

    Cavallo Perin (2004), pp. 201–208.

  16. 16.

    Macchia (2012), p. 85.; Chiti (2010a), p. 241 et seq.; Lottini (2012), pp. 127–147, where cooperation is considered as an integration tool, which aims to ensure the proper application of EU law and the protection provided by the E.C.J.

  17. 17.

    TFEU, art. 6: “The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be (a) protection and improvement of human health; (b) industry; (c) culture; (d) tourism; (e) education, vocational training, youth and sport; (f) civil protection; (g) administrative cooperation”. EU Commission, Commission staff working paper concerning the application of EU public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities (‘public-public cooperation’), 4 October 2011, SEC(2011) 1169 final. See Wiggen (2012), pp. 225–233.

  18. 18.

    See TFEU, art. 197(3).

  19. 19.

    Cortese (2012), cit., p. 168 and Schwarze (2012), p. 287.

  20. 20.

    Chiti (2012), cit., p. 19 et seq. See EU Parliament, European administrative law in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon: introductory remarks, 2011 (on line: http://www.europarl.europa.eu), Id., Towards an EU Regulation on Administrative Procedure?, 2010, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu, where the convergences between the evolution of European administrative law and of the national administrative laws are highlighted. At the very beginning the legal traditions of the Member States have influenced the E.C.J. case law in the formulation of General principles in the matter of “circular motion”; then, the principles of law established by the E.C.J. have influenced the administrative law of the Member States and, increasingly, the European legislation and secondary sources, at times pushing Member States to change their internal administrative laws in compliance with European standards even in areas outside the Union’s competence.

  21. 21.

    TFEU, art. 6.

  22. 22.

    TFEU, art. 298: “(1) In carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration. (2) In compliance with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment adopted on the basis of Article 336, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish provisions to that end”. Craig A General Law on Administrative Procedure, Legislative Competence and Judicial Competence, European Review of Public Law, 2013, 503 (on line: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298610), where the legitimacy of the European institutions the adoption of a general regulation on administrative procedure is brought back to the rules of the Treaty expressly confers on the regulatory power in certain sectors: telecommunications, waste management, protection of competition.

  23. 23.

    TEU, art. 5; Treaty of Lisbon, annex protocol 2.

  24. 24.

    TFEU arts. 6 and 197. See Lafarge (2010), pp. 597–616, qualifies administrative cooperation as an essential element for the proper functioning of EU policies and related European legislation, particularly with regard to matters related to the internal market. Administrative cooperation is the instrument to ensure free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, and to reduce barriers between the public administrations of the States. In this context, the transition from the concept of a common market to that of the single market implies a higher level of cooperation. See Directive 2006/123/EC, 12 December 2006, on services in the internal market, which states that “administrative cooperation is essential to make the internal market in services function properly. Lack of cooperation between Member States results in proliferation of rules applicable to service providers or duplication of controls for cross-border activities, and can also be used by rogue traders to avoid supervision or to circumvent applicable national rules on services. It is, therefore, essential to provide for clear, legally binding obligations for Member States to cooperate effectively.” See The Internal Market after 1992. Meeting the Challenge. Report to the EEC Commission by the High Level Group on the Operation of the Internal Market, 28 October 1992, accessible at http://aei.pitt.edu/1025/1/Market_post_1992_Sutherland_1.pdf, referring to the need of “enforcing the rules through partnership”.

  25. 25.

    TEU, art. 4, “The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union”.

  26. 26.

    See TFEU, arts. 6 and 197. Cortese (2011), pp. 140 and 141 and Macchia (2010), cit., p. 94, pointing out that the ability to effectively implement EU law exceeds the “formal complying with the law” finally coming to the definition of a “cohesion between law and social reality”. Cfr. Chiti (2010b), p. 221, where it is stated that art. 197 TFEU seems to be posing a new ‘constitutional’ attention to the issue regarding national public administrations’ capacity, qualifying the effectiveness of enforcement as a question of common interest and acknowledging that it should be ensured by a system of cooperation at the EU level.

  27. 27.

    Galetta (2010a), p. 1689 et seq. and Chiti (2004), p. 175 et seq.

  28. 28.

    On this issue: D’astoli and Dotto (2012), 7; Galetta (2009); Chiti (2012), cit., pp. 26–27; Macchia (2010), therein, p. 109. See Schwarze (2012), p. 294, where the ‘voluntary’ nature of cooperation is highlighted, as governed by art. 197 TFEU where the European Union action is used to support the Member States in order to “improve their administrative capacity to implement Union law” (TFEU art. 197(2)) helping to ensure their effectiveness.

  29. 29.

    TFEU, art. 197(3).

  30. 30.

    TFEU, art. 33. “Within the scope of application of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall take measures in order to strengthen customs cooperation between Member States and between the latter and the Commission”.

  31. 31.

    TFEU, arts. 82 et seq. See Selvaggi (2015), p. 3800B and Spiezia (2015), p. 1614C.

  32. 32.

    TFEU, art. 67. See also art. 87 TFEU, where it is affirmed that “The Union shall establish police cooperation involving all the Member States’ competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences”. Lafarge (2010), p. 600 et seq.; The Internal Market after 1992. Meeting the Challenge. Report to the EEC Commission by the High Level Group on the Operation of the Internal Market, cit.

  33. 33.

    TFEU, arts. 113 and 115; Directive 2011/16/EU, 15 February 2011, on the obligations of national authorities to send information to the competent authorities of the other Member States.

  34. 34.

    TFEU, art. 81, where it is provided that “The Union shall develop judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases. Such cooperation may include the adoption of measures for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States”.

  35. 35.

    TFEU, art. 113. Lafarge (2010), cit., pp. 602–611, where it is made a distinction between the duties of cooperation provided for by the EU legal framework (TFEU, art. 33 in the field of customs cooperation; TFEU, art. 46(a), in the field of free movement of workers; TFEU, art. 74, in the field of an area of freedom, security and justice; TFUE, art. 81 in the field of judicial cooperation on civil matters) and optional tools aimed to favor cooperation.

  36. 36.

    TFEU, art. 197(2), with regulations approved by the Parliament and Council.

  37. 37.

    Cavallo Perin (2000), cit., p. 613, on the distinction between the judgement of validity (necessarily referring only to the act, i.e. the activity) and the judgement on efficiency, which concerns the organization as a whole, where it is noted that an efficient administration determines an efficient activity. Caretti (1994) and Pinelli (1994), therein; Corso (1995) and Hofmann (2008), cit., p. 662 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Among the forms of cooperation in the training of public officials in Europe, we can recall the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) which, through a network among public administrations (European, national and local), offers integrated training with activities of research and applied consultancy; the European Public Administration Network (EUPAN), which is a type of informal cooperation among the public administration ministers of the Member States, the EU Commission and possible observers, carrying out its activities at the political, managerial and technical levels (including through special groups of work): Common Assessment Framework, 2013, http://www.eipa.eu/en/topic/show/&tid=191; EUPAN, http://www.eupan.eu/en/content/show/%26tid=188. Ponzio (2012), p. 22 et seq.; Colaiacomo (2009), p. 186; Rolli and Comite (2008), p. 326 and Bianchini (2003), p. 349.

  39. 39.

    Galetta (2010a), cit., p. 1689 et seq.

  40. 40.

    Cassese (1987), p. 155; Merusi (1993), p. 21 et seq; Franchini (2007), p. 245 et seq and Bachelet (1957), p. 23.

  41. 41.

    Hofmann (2008), cit., pp. 665–668.

  42. 42.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 41. Romano Tassone (2008), p. 112. Cfr. Schwarze (2012), cit., pp. 298–299, where it is clarified that the choice of founding “European administrative law” on the concept of rule of law has made it possible to define the development of the protection of fundamental rights including the right to good administration (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 41) and the right of access to documents (Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, art. 42). Bassanini (2012), cit., p. 16.

  43. 43.

    See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 41. See: Bassanini (2012), cit., pp. 15 and 16, with reference to the creation of a “Maastricht public administration” and to the possible setting in the Treaty of “quality standards and minimum efficiency while respecting the diversity of the choices made by each country with regard to the institutional and organizational models and the status of civil servants”.

  44. 44.

    To exploit the full potential of these means, tools can be used that are designed for all sectors and include the exchange of information between institutions, agencies and national public administrations, the so-called IDABC Interoperable Delivery of pan-European eGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Business and Citizens whose objective is the development of e-government services to public authorities, economic operators and citizens; the Internal Market Information System which is the European cooperation tool aimed to facilitate the exchange of information among public administrations of EU States: see the Growth DG Communication: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/toolsdatabases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8235&lang=en&title=European-Commission-launches-IMIpublic-procurement-pilot-project, 20 April 2015. “Once registered in the system and depending on the national organisation of the use of IMI, they can: remove doubts surrounding the authenticity of a document or certificate provided by a tenderer; check that a company has the required technical specifications (fulfills national standards, labels, conformity assessments, etc.) or is suitable for carrying out the contract in question; verify that a company does not fall under any grounds for exclusion such as having been convicted for fraud; confirm the information from a previously submitted European standardised self-declaration of a tender”. In addition, the EU Commission has unified in one program—the Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations—ISA program—forty actions related also to activities carried out in previous EU-funded projects aimed at interoperability of information of public administrations and standardization content (see The ISA program, http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/index_en.htm, whose budget is about 160 million Euros) in which special interests have taken those specifically aimed at simplifying the formalities relating to public contracts (see: “Supporting cross-border accessibility and interoperability in eProcurement”, http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/2-11action_en.htm and “Towards a simple procurement eligibility assessment” http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/216action_en.htm) especially of cross-border and transnational character. As part of the ISA program on interoperability tools for public administrations on public contracts, we can find the action called “Greater clarity of evidence requirements in the EU public procurement” aimed at developing computer tools (e-Certis) to facilitate participation in the selection procedures for a contractor, including for SMEs. On this point see: http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/2-17action_en.htm. Lafarge (2010), pp. 612–613; Lafarge (2010), cit., pp. 612–614, on the forms of administrative cooperation developed in Europe since the mid 1990s through the use of databases.

  45. 45.

    Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, on the award of concession contracts, art. 17; Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, on public procurement, art. 12; Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, on the so-called excluded sectors, art. 28; See Wiggen (2014), p. 83 et seq.

  46. 46.

    The expression “in-house contract” was used for the first time in the 1998 White Paper, in which the European Commission considers in-house procurements as those awarded within the Public Administration, between central and local public administrations and between the Public Administration and a company which is wholly owned by it. See the Opinion of Advocate-General S. Alber, in E.C.J., 9 September 1999 in Case C-108/98, RI.SAN Srl v Comune di Ischia, and then E.C.J., 18 November 1999, in C- 107/98 Teckal srl v. Comune di Viano and AGAC; the dispute is reconstructed in Cavallo Perin and Casalini (2006), pp. 51–97; Noguera De La Muela (2010), p. 159 et seq.; Capantini (2004), p. 801; Casalini (2003), p. 248 and Alberti (2001), p. 511, p. 47 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Among which, with a special set of norms, every joint venture that has been established for at least 3 years between the contracting authorities is included: Directive 2014/23/EU, cit. Art. 14; Directive 2014/24/UE, cit., art. 12.

  48. 48.

    E.C.J., 7 December 2000, in case C- 94-99, ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesministerium für Land und Forstwiertschaft (par. 38) denying a discrimination or a restriction contrary to the Treaty in the possibility for a body governed by public law and receiving public subsidies to participate in a public tender submitting bids at prices that are considerably lower than those of others (see. Discipline on abnormal supply or the prohibition on aid to businesses). E.C.J., 18 December 2014, in case C-568/13, AO-Universitaria Careggi-Firenze v. Data Medical Service S.r.l., according to which it is contrary to European law to exclude a public hospital from participating in tendering procedures because of its nature of public economic entity.

  49. 49.

    E.C.J., 23 December 2009, in case C-305/08, Conisma v. Regione Marche, par. 30 and 45.

  50. 50.

    See State Council, section VI, 18 May 2015, No. 2515.

  51. 51.

    Equally indifferent is the system of ownership, and directive 2014/24 takes care of clarifying that it does not require the privatization of public entities providing services to the public.

  52. 52.

    The opinion of Advocate-General V. Trstenjak, 23 may 2012, in case C-159/11, Asl Lecce and Università del Salento v. Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, par. 49.

  53. 53.

    Directive 2014/23/UE, cit, art. 31, par. 4 et seq.; Directive 2014/24/UE, cit, art. 32.

  54. 54.

    There is no duty to liberalize or externalize services of a general economic interest (Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of the 26 April 2012 on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the award of concession contracts’ COM(2011) 897—2011/0437 (COD)). Directive 2014/23/EU, cit.; European Charter of Local Self-Government, 15 October 1985, art. 2, ratified in Italy with Law of 30 December 1989, no. 439, arts. 1–3.

  55. 55.

    Directive 2014/23/EU, cit, art. 2.

  56. 56.

    After the repeal referendum of art. 23 bis, Law Decree of 25 June 2008, no. 112, converted into Law of 6 August 2008, no. 133, as well as the unconstitutionality of art. 4 Law Decree of 13 August 2011, no. 138, converted into Law of 14 September 2011, no. 148, the in-house goes back to being regulated by EU law principles and specific rules. State Council, section V, 30 September 2013, No. 4832; State Council, section VI, 11 February 2013, No. 762; State Council, 26 January 2011, No. 24; amplius Cavallo Perin (2011), pp. 119–135, Id., (2014a), pp. 23–40.

  57. 57.

    State Council, section V, 22 January 2015, No. 257; State Council, section V, 30 September 2013, No. 4832; State Council, section VI, 11 February 2013, No. 762.

  58. 58.

    Romano (1987), p. 31 et seq.

  59. 59.

    E.C.J., 7 October 2004, Sintesi S.p.A. v. Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici, in case C-247/02; E.C.J., V, 26 March 2015, Ambisig v. Nersant, in case C-601/13.

  60. 60.

    Directive 2014/23/EU, cit., art. 2.

  61. 61.

    The expression “public services” is not common in European Law; for public service obligations: see EU Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, The Application of EU State Aid rules on Services of General Economic Interest since 2005 and the Outcome of the Public Consultation, 23 March 2011, SEC(2011) 397.

  62. 62.

    Merusi (2006), p. 1 and Sardelli (2015), p. 464.

  63. 63.

    E.C.J., 18 November 1999, in case C-107/98, Teckal v. Com. Viano e AGAC; State Council, section V, 6 May 2002, No. 2418; State Council, section VI, 11 February 2013, No. 762; State Council, section VI, 25 January 2005, No. 168; State Council, section V, 11 May 2007, No. 2334.

  64. 64.

    EU Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper concerning the application of eu public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities (‘public-public cooperation’), 4 October 2011, SEC(2011) 1169.

  65. 65.

    Art. 5, art. 6, art. 197, TFEU on which supra § 1.

  66. 66.

    Trimarchi Banfi (2010), p. 339; Iera and Villari (2014), p. 525; Mazzamuto (2014), p. 550; Ursi (2014), p. 557 and Volpe (2015), in www.astrid-online.it/.

  67. 67.

    E.C.J., 18 November 1999, in case C-107/98, Teckal c. Com. Viano e AGAC, par. 26.

  68. 68.

    See E.C.J., 8 May 2014, in case C-15/13 Politecnico di Amburgo HIS v. Datenlosten Informationssysteme GmbH; E.C.J., 13 November 2008, in case C- 324/07, Coditel Brabant SA v. Commune di Uccle; E.C.J, 10 September 2009, in case C-573/07, Sea Srl v. Comune di Ponte Nossa; E.C.J., 17 July 2008, in case C –371/05, Commissione delle Comunità europee v. Repubblica Italiana; E.C.J., 11 May 2006, in case C-340/04, Carbotermo S.p.A. Consorzio Alisei v. Comune di Busto Arsizio e Agesp Holding S.p.A.; E.C.J., 13 October 2005, in case C-458/03, Parking Brixen GmbH v. Comune di Bressanone ASM Bressanone S.p.A.; Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, 28 January 2014, no. 3201; Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, 25 November 2013, No. 26283; Court of Audit, Section for the Supervision of Lazio, Deliberation 20 January 2015, c.2015c.PRSP; State Council, section III, 27 April 2015, No. 2154; State Council, Opinion, section II, 30 January 2015, No. 298; State Council, section VI, 26 May 2015, No. 2660; State Council, section V, 14 October 2014, No. 5080; State Council, section V, 8 March 2011, No. 1447; State Council, section V, 26 August 2009, No. 5082.

  69. 69.

    Goals, priorities, plans, programs and general directives for administrative action and management: Legislative Decree no. 165, 2001, art. 4(1b). See Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, cit., art. 7, par. 6, where it is provided, as a condition for the award of tasks to external personnel, that the administration has “preliminary assessed the objective impossibility to use the human resources available within the administration”. It is a constraint, also introduced in various specific disciplines, that is considered as an expression of the principle of good administration and the violations of which constitute a legal basis for administrative liability.

  70. 70.

    See E.C.J., 11 January 2005, in case C-26/03, Stadt Hall v. RPL Lochau, excluding that an authority can exercise a control similar to the one exercised over its own departments even if a private company owns a minimum share; E.C.J., 13 November 2008, in case C- 324/07 cit.; see E.C.J., sez. III, 10 September 2009, Sea Srl v. Comune di Ponte Nossa, in case C-573/07, where the mere possibility that privates participate in the capital is not sufficient to exclude a similar control; E.C.J., 6 April 2006, in case C-410/04 Anav v. AMTAB; Cassation, United Civil Sections, 25 November 2013, no. 26283 where the wholly-owned public capital is considered as one of the three conditions after which it is possible to establish an in-house providing relationship; State Council, section VI, 26 May 2015, no. 2660 where it is said that the wholly-owned public capital is the necessary, though not sufficient, condition to exert a similar control; Opinion State Council, No. 298 of 2015; State Council, section VI, 25 November 2008, No. 5781; State Council, section V, 30 August 2006, No. 5072; State Council, section V, 11 September 2015, no. 4253; State Council, section VI, 26 May 2015, No. 2660; State Council, section VI, 25 November 2008, No. 5781; State Council, section V, 30 August 2006, No. 5072.

  71. 71.

    Amplius: Cavallo Perin (2011), cit., pp. 124–125. See Goisis (2004), p. 48.

  72. 72.

    The discipline on the local public services which requires for the tender to allocate capital shares of the companies managing services to privates is not an obstacle: Legislative Decree of 18 August 2000, no. 267, art. 115.

  73. 73.

    See E.C.J., section I, 13 October 2005, in case C-458/03, cit.; E.C.J., section III, 13 November 2008, Coditel Brabant SA v. Commune d’Uccle e Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, in case C-324/07, where, dealing with the question of in-house with joint control, it was stated that “the possibility for the public authorities to use their own instruments to fulfill their public service missions can be used in collaboration with other public authorities”, with comment of Ferrari (2009), p. 354; E.C.J., 10 September 2009, in case C-573/07 cit., about the representatives of the company and the exercise of trustees in the exercise of statutory powers of interference on major decisions; E.C.J., 29 November 2012, in case C-182/11 and C-183/11, cit., for a similar joined control, the participation of the awarding authority in both the capital share and the governing bodies is considered to be valid. In the case law: State Council, section V, 26 August 2009, No. 5082; State Council, section V, 25 June 2002, No. 3448, asserting that the low participation of some municipalities is not relevant; State Council, section V, 19 February 2004, No. 679; State Council, section V, 10 September 2014, No. 4599, where the representative in the board of directors is not relevant in case its tasks are directed to implement the board’s orientation and for non-classified acts.

  74. 74.

    Amplius Cavallo Perin and Casalini (2006), cit., p. 80: the “similar control” is “relative” and “not absolute” and the “excessive fragmentation” of capital shares does not prevent the continuation of a relationship of in-house providing, imposing vice versa that the latter shall have powers to influence the choices of society; Cavallo Perin (2011), cit., pp. 124–125.

  75. 75.

    See Lolli (2005), p. 1942; La Porta (2002) pp. 1, 12 et seq and Olivero (2003), pp. 4, 847 et seq.

  76. 76.

    See E.C.J., section V, 8 May 2014, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations- System GmbH v. Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH, in case C-15/13, cit., which hints at the possibility to consider the requirement of similar control satisfied even in the case where the awarding is between two subsidiaries of the same administration through operations known as horizontal in house.

  77. 77.

    E.C.J., 9 June 2009, Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany, in case C-480/06. See Kotsonis (2009), p. 212.

  78. 78.

    E.C.J., 9 June 2009, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, in case C-480/06, known also as “Hamburg case”; E.C.J., Grand Chamber, 19 December 2012, Asl Lecce e Università del Salento v. Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, in case C-159/11, par. 2 (where it is clarified that they were dealing with a contract for consultancy signed between a Local Health Authority and the University, regarding the study and the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of hospital infrastructures in the province of Lecce) and par. 37; E.C.J., section X, 16 May 2013, Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia e a./ Comune di Pavia /Università degli Studi di Pavia, in case C- 564/11; E.C.J., section V, 13 June, 2013, Piepenbrock/Kreis Duren-Stadt Duren, in case C- 386/11; Cons. St., section III, 13 November 2014, no. 5587, Farmacie Comunali di Torino S.p.a. v. Comune di Vinovo e Azienda Speciale Multiservizi di Venaria Reale; State Council, Opinion 11 March 2015, no. 1178. See EU Commission, New rules on Public contracts and concessions simpler and more flexible, 2014, on line: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publications/docs/public-procurement-and-concessions_en.pdf, p. 5; Burgi (2012).

  79. 79.

    See the long legal tradition on local public services in convention or consortium (Legislative Decree no. 267 of 2000, cit. Arts. 30 and 31; l. 8 June 1990, no. 142, arts. 24 and 25) which later became a general rule of administrative action (Law of 7 August 1990, no. 241, art. 15).

  80. 80.

    E. C. J., in case C-480/06, cit., par. 33, 47; 18 November 1999, in case C-107/98, Teckal s.r.l. v. Comune di Viano e Azienda Gas-Acqua Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia, par. 50; 13 January 2005, in case C-84/03, Commission v. Spain, par. 40; section I, 11 January 2005, in case C-26/03, Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau Recyclingpark GmbH v. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna, par. 48. See G. M. Caruso La collaborazione contrattuale fra pubbliche amministrazioni. Unità e frammentazione della sfera pubblica fra logica del mercato e obiettivi di contenimento della spesa, in Riv. It. Dir. Pubb. Com., 2015, p. 775.

  81. 81.

    E.C.J., Grand Chamber, 19 December 2012, in case C-159/11, Asl Lecce and Università del Salento v. Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, par. 35; Opinion Advocate General V. Trstenjak, 23 May 2012, in case C-159/11, Asl Lecce and Università del Salento v. Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce, pars. 66 and 67.

  82. 82.

    The same principles are affirmed in E.C.J., 19 December 2012, ASL Lecce v. Univ. Salento and Ordine Ing. Prov. Lecce, in case C-159/11; E.C.J., Opinion of the 16 May 2013, Consulta Reg. Ord. Ing. della Lombardia v. Comune di Pavia, Univ. degli Studi di Pavia, in case C-564/11; E.C.J., Section X, 20 June 2013, Cons. Naz. Ing. v. Comune di Castelvecchio Subequo, Univ. degli Studi di Chieti Pescara – Dip. Scienze e Storia dell’Architettura, Cons. Naz. Ing., Comune di Barisciano, Scuola di Architettura e Design Vittoria dell’Univ. di Camerino, in case C-352/12; E.C.J., 13 June 2013, in cases C- 159/11 and C-386/11, Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Kreis Duren, Stadt Duren.

  83. 83.

    E.C.J., 15 October 2009, in case C-275/08, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany.

  84. 84.

    EU Commission, Staff Working Paper concerning the application of EU public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities (‘public-public cooperation’), SEC (2011) 1169, p. 15.

  85. 85.

    Law of 7 August 2015, no. 124, Deleghe al Governo in materia di riorganizzazione delle amministrazioni pubbliche, art. 19.

  86. 86.

    State Council, Section V, 30 September 2013, no. 4832; ANAC, Opinion, 30 July 2013, AG 42/2013; ANAC, Opinion, 23 April 2014, AG 20/2014.

  87. 87.

    Gideon and Sanchez-Graells (2016).

  88. 88.

    E.C.J., 9 June 2009, C-480/06, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, also known as “Hamburg case”, which ruled out the obligation to tender for the establishment of the public buying groups; see amplius: Cavallo Perin (2014a), pp. 23–40.

  89. 89.

    Cavallo Perin (2014b), p. 38.

  90. 90.

    De Gaspare (1989) and Civitarese (2006), p. 182.

  91. 91.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, arts. 37, 38 and 39.

  92. 92.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, recital no. 71 et seq.; Cavallo Perin et al. (2016), cit.

  93. 93.

    In these terms: Cavallo Perin (2016), p. 6.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, recital no. 73: “Joint awarding of public contracts by contracting authorities from different Member States currently encounters specific legal difficulties concerning conflicts of national laws. Despite the fact that Directive 2004/18/EC implicitly allowed for cross-border joint public procurement, contracting authorities are still facing considerable legal and practical difficulties in purchasing from central purchasing bodies in other Member States or jointly awarding public contracts. In order to allow contracting authorities to derive maximum benefit from the potential of the internal market in terms of economies of scale and risk-benefit sharing, not least for innovative projects involving a greater amount of risk than reasonably bearable by a single contracting authority, those difficulties should be remedied. Therefore, new rules on cross-border joint procurement should be established in order to facilitate cooperation between contracting authorities and enhancing the benefits of the internal market by creating cross-border business opportunities for suppliers and service providers”.

  95. 95.

    See the Commission’s announcement: To increase transparency in public procurement opportunities, an online machine translation service will be available, free of charge, for all public procurement notices published in Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) from 15 January 2016. This service will be available from and to all 24 EU official languages.

  96. 96.

    To stimulate the development of innovation and ensure the full realization of the internal market, the support for establishing networks of cooperation between contracting authorities from different Member States is strategic. The EU Commission has supported the creation of three transnational networks: “Enprotex”, to stimulate innovation of textile protection products through public procurement aimed at meeting the future needs of fire and rescue services (http: //www.firebuy.gov.uk/home.aspx); “Sci-Network” to take advantage of building sustainable innovations in relation to the restructuring of existing buildings, innovative building materials, the analysis and the use of life-cycle analysis (LCA) and life-cycle costing (LCC) (http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=796); “Lcb –Healthcare” to stimulate the creation of innovative solutions with low emissions for the health sector. Lafarge (2010), cit., p. 600, on the so-called Sutherland report (cit.) for the establishment of a general system of administrative cooperation.

  97. 97.

    In the context outlined recalling programs such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP—Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, http://ec.europa.eu/cip/. See also: Programme for the Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs (COSME) 2014–2020) and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7—Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7), http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm), then in the Europe 2020 strategy for the identification, development and testing of joint innovative solutions, with a support to SMEs, particularly innovative ones, the reference markets, arguing with dedicated budget, the Member States in the acquisition of innovative products. Among the most advanced testing of innovative joint procurement across borders, the project HAPPI (Healthy Ageing—Public Procurement of Innovations, http://www.happi-project.eu/), which aimed to favor product innovation, enabled significant change in the contractor selection process, being carried out with a joint framework agreement among several Member States and also open to accession by others, and anticipating solutions today governed by the new directive on public procurement (Directive 2014/24/EU, cit., Title II, Chapter II, Techniques and Instruments for Electronic and Aggregated Procurement (esp. Art. 39). Directive 2014/24/UE, cit., recital no. 97).

  98. 98.

    Directive 2014/24/UE, recital nos. 71 and 73. See EU Commission, Staff Working Paper concerning the application of EU public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities (public-public cooperation), cit., where it distinguished between cooperation for the performance of tasks of public interest in the proper sense, and assigned activities that would require a competitive tendering within the market.

  99. 99.

    Directive 24/2014/EU, recital no. 71: “Each contracting authority should be solely responsible in respect of procedures or parts of procedures it conducts on its own, such as the awarding of a contract, the conclusion of a framework agreement, the operation of a dynamic purchasing system, the reopening of competition under a framework agreement or the determination of which of the economic operators party to a framework agreement shall perform a given task”.

  100. 100.

    Respectively: Law of 7 August 1990, no. 241, Norme in materia di procedimento amministrativo e di diritto di accesso ai documenti amministrativi; and Legislative Decree of 18 August 2000, no. 267, Testo unico delle leggi sull’ordinamento degli enti locali.

  101. 101.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, recital no. 73. See: EU Commission, Staff Working Paper concerning the application of EU public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities (public-public cooperation), cit. See: Cavallo Perin and Casalini (2009), pp. 227–241; See also: Bassi (2007), p. 551 et seq. and Tátrai (2015).

  102. 102.

    Racca (2014b), pp. 234–235. The use of central purchasing body is a form of public-public cooperation, with reference to which the EU Court of Justice has already had occasion to rule on the risks that may result from collusion among public entities: ECJ, 14 October 2004, EC Commission v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, in Case C-113/02, excluding in some cases: CGCE, 11 July 2006, Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v. EC Commission in Case C-205/03, § 26; ECJ, 26 March 2009, Selex v. EC Commission—Eurocontrol, in C-113/07 P, § 102. In both cases, the Court held that “in order to assess the nature of that purchasing activity, we should not separate the activity of purchasing goods from the subsequent made of them, and that the economic or not next use the income of the product purchased necessarily determine the character of purchase.” Contra: Sánchez Graells (2011), pp. 150–151 and pp. 165–166.

  103. 103.

    Racca (2014a), cit., p. 12.

  104. 104.

    Cavallo Perin (2014b), cit., p. 37; Albano et al. (2008), p. 3; Fiorentino (2011), p. 18; Mazzantini (2011), p. 53 et seq and Racca and Cavallo Perin (2011), p. 197.

  105. 105.

    See Directive 24/2014/EU, cit.

  106. 106.

    Strategies already described in Racca (2014b), cit., especially p. 14 et seq.

  107. 107.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, § 73.

  108. 108.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, art. 39, § 4; Directive 2014/25/EU, art. 57, § 4.

  109. 109.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, art. 39, § 4; Directive 2014/25/EU, art. 57, § 4.

  110. 110.

    On these issues see Racca (2014a), cit., p. 11 et seq.; R. Cavallo Perin, Relazione Conclusiva, therein, p. 38.

  111. 111.

    Healthy Ageing—Public Procurement of Innovations (HAPPI) (http://www.happi-project.eu/ funded by the EU Commission—DG Enterprise and Industry within the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP)—ref. Call ENT/CIP/11/C/N02C011.

  112. 112.

    HAPPI has 12 European partners from France (Réseau des Acheteurs Hospitaliers d’Ile-de-France, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Santé Publique (EHESP), BPIFRANCE), the United Kingdom (NHS Commercial Solutions, BITECIC Ltd), Germany (ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability), Italy (University of Turin and the Piedmont Region Client Company, SCR), Belgium (MercurHosp—mutualisation hospitalière), Luxembourg (Fédération des Hôpitaux Luxembourgeois (FHL), Austria (the Federal Procurement Agency (FPA)—Associate partner) and Spain (FIBICO—Associate partner). For a description of the project activities, see S. Ponzio, Joint Procurement and Innovation in the new EU Directive and in some EU founded projects, in Ius Publicum Network Review, 2/2014, available at http://www.ius--publicum.com/repository/uploads/20_03_2015_13_12--Ponzio_IusPub_JointProc_def.pdf, p. 1 et seq.

  113. 113.

    Racca and Ponzio (2011), pp. 7–12 and Ponzio (2011), cit., p. 254 et seq.

  114. 114.

    See the award of the framework agreement HAPPI: http://www.happi-project.eu/news-events/news/139-the-happicontracts-are-awarded.

  115. 115.

    A similar provision is found with reference to procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (Art. 57 § 2, Directive 25/2014/EU) in order to overcome “conflicts between the different national laws.” See also § no. 82.

  116. 116.

    Directive EU, art. 4 par. 1, letters (a) and (b). Directive 24/2014/EU recital no. 69. G.M. Racca, Le centrali di commitenza nele nuove strategie di aggregazione dei contrati pubblici, in Italiadecide—Rapporto 2015, cit., S. Arrowsmith, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement. Regulation in the EU and UK, London, 2014, I, pp. 380–381.

  117. 117.

    EU Commission, reform of public procurement, certificate no. 3: simplification of the rules for contracting authorities, available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/reform/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-03simplification-public-purchasers_it.pdf.

  118. 118.

    Cavallo Perin(2014b), cit., p. 36. Cavallo Perin (2016), p. 7.

  119. 119.

    Directive 2007/66/EC of 11 December 2007 amending Directives 89/665/EEC (which coordinated the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts) and 92/13/EEC (which coordinated the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, energy, transport sectors and that the authorities operating in the telecommunications sector) of the Council with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts. Racca (2012), p. 2650; Id., (2003), p. 38 et seq; Romano Tassone (2004), Sandulli (2010), pp. 67–102; Sandulli (2012), p. 3156; Ponzio (2013), p. 1085.

  120. 120.

    Cavallo Perin (2016), p. 7. Mattarella (2014), p. 61 e s.

  121. 121.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, art. 39, § 5.

  122. 122.

    Directive 2014/25/EU, art. 57, § 5.

  123. 123.

    Directive 24/2014/EU, art. 39, § 5: “Where several contracting authorities from different Member States have set up a joint entity, including European Groupings of territorial cooperation under Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) or other entities established under Union law, the participating contracting authorities shall, by a decision of the competent body of the joint entity, agree on the applicable national procurement rules of one of the following Member States: (a) the national provisions of the Member State where the joint entity has its registered office; (b) the national provisions of the Member State where the joint entity is carrying out its activities.”

  124. 124.

    Regulation 1082/2006/CE of 5 July 2006; EU Commission, European Territorial Cooperation. Building Bridges Between People, 2011, available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/pdf/brochures/etc_book_lr.pdf. Lanzoni (2011), p. 503; Cocucci (2008), p. 891 et seq; Soverino (2009), p. 17 et seq and Dickmann (2006), p. 2901.

  125. 125.

    In the new cohesion policy priorities are: the “Investment for growth and employment”, with the national and regional programs being funded through the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), the ESF (European Social Fund) and the Cohesion Fund, aiming to cross-border and transnational cooperation programs, also inter-financed by the ERDF. Regulation 1303/2013/EU of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fund for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and general provisions on the European regional development Fund, the European social Fund, the cohesion Fund and the European Fund for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006 of the Council; Regulation 1304/2013/EU of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1081/2006 of the Council.

  126. 126.

    EU Parliament, European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation as an Instrument for Promotion and Improvement of Territorial Cooperation in Europe, July 2015, pp. 36–37; Committee of the Regions, Conclusions of the Committee of the Regions about the Joint Consultation. The Review of Regulation (EC) 1082/2006 on the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, available at http://cor.europa.eu/en/archived/documents/366960dd-3c03-4efa-9230665455fa6bb5.pdf.

  127. 127.

    They may be based on national legal forms (associations, for example) in which partners from different countries participate, or cooperation is realized with a valid bilateral agreement by the regional border.

  128. 128.

    Regulation 1082/2006/EC and Regulation 1302/2013/EU.

  129. 129.

    After 6 months by national authorities. See Regulation 1302/2013/EU, art. 4, par. 3, which provided that at least the Member State where the registered office of the EGTC proposal would be located formally approves the Convention.

  130. 130.

    From 3 to 6 months. This extension is justified by the fact that the current period of 3 months was rarely respected and this is an obstacle to the creation of new EGTCs.

  131. 131.

    Regulation 1082/2006/EC, art. 3, as amended by EU Regulation 1302/2013. The approval of participation in an EGTC composed by public law, by the competent authorities at the national level, requires the submission to the competent national authorities of a proposal for the EGCT Convention, where an indication of the activities that have to be performed. In Italy, the Community Law of 2008 (Law of July 7, 2009, no. 88, Provisions for the fulfillment of obligations deriving from Italy to the European Communities—Community Law 2008, published in Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 161 of 14 July 2009) provided for rules on the participation of the national authorization procedure in an EGCT, which will have to be adapted in the light of the renewed European framework of the EGCT by a new Regulation.

  132. 132.

    Examples of such agreements are the Karlsruhe agreement (1997), Mainz agreement (1998), Isselburg-Anholt agreement (1991) and the Benelux agreement (1986).

  133. 133.

    Regulation 1082/2006/EC, art. 8 as modified by Regulation 1302/2013/EU. The agreement: the name of the EGTC and its registered office; the extent of the territory in which the EGTC may carry out its duties; the goal and the tasks of the EGTC; the duration of the EGCC and the conditions for its dissolution; the list of the EGTC’s members; the list of the EGTC’s organs and their competencies; the applicable Union law and the one of the Member State in which the national EGTC has its registered office in the interpretation and application of the Convention; the applicable Union law and that of the Member State in which the national organs of the EGTC operate; the arrangements for the participation of members from third countries or the OCT, where appropriate including the identification of the applicable law where the EGTC carries out tasks in third countries or in the OCT; the applicable Union and national law directly relevant to the grouping’s activities conducted in accordance with the tasks specified in the agreement; the rules applicable to the EGTC’s staff as well as the principles governing the arrangements concerning personnel management and recruitment procedures; the provisions regarding the liability of the EGTC and of its members; the appropriate provisions on mutual recognition, including with regard to the financial control of the management of public funds; the procedures for adopting the statutes and amending the convention. The tasks of the EGTC are defined by the convention agreed by its members. Their boundaries, delicate point of balance between the aspirations of the Regions and the integrity of sovereignty and state control, is specified by a number of available but remains in the open complex of extended cooperation and progressive processes. The members may decide by unanimity to empower the execution of tasks to one of its members. Carrea (2012), p. 611.

  134. 134.

    EU Commission, Note for guidance on the funding of joint EDF-ERDF projects 2014–2020, 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/guidance_fed_feder_en.pdf. Cfr. TFUE, art. 159.

  135. 135.

    On the discipline establishment and operation: EC Regulation 1082/2006, as a modified by Regulation 1302/2013/EU, in force since 22 June 2014.

  136. 136.

    Regulation 1082/2006/EC, recital no. 7.

  137. 137.

    In general, it has members in at least two Member States, although specific provisions are provided when neighboring countries and overseas countries and territories are involved.

  138. 138.

    Within ten working days from the registration or publication of the convention and statutes of the country where the EGTC has its registered office, the EGTC shall notify the Committee of the Regions (CoR), which maintains a register of EGTCs. The CoR then transmits the information to the Office of the European Union, which publishes a notice in the Italian Gazzetta Ufficiale announcing the establishment of the EGTC.

  139. 139.

    The internal organization and functioning of the EGTC is instead governed by its Statute: EC Regulation 1082/2006, Art. 9 as amended by EU Regulation 1302/2013. The Statute of each EGTC governing the internal organization identifies: the tasks of the organs and how they work; decision-making procedures and language/and work; the methods of operation and employment contracts; financial contributions, the rules on accounting and financial statements. The statutes specify a minimum for: the operating mode of its organs and powers of these bodies, as well as the number of representatives of the members in the relevant organs; its decision-making procedures; its language or its working languages; the arrangements for its operation; the procedures concerning the management and staff recruitment; the provisions concerning the financial contribution of its members; the applicable rules of accounting and budget for its members; the appointment of an independent external auditor of the accounts; the amendment of its articles of association procedures. The statutes set up an assembly composed of representatives of each EGTC’s members and a director who represents the EGTC itself, also establishing an annual budget based on the legislation of the country where it has its registered office. They also characterize any other organs by defining their competencies: Regulation 1082/2006/EC, art. 11 as amended by Regulation 1302/2013/EU. The preparation of accounts including the annual report accompanying them, and the checking and publication of those accounts shall be governed by the national law of the Member State where the EGTC has its registered office. The budget is divided into a component of operating costs and, if necessary, an operational component.

  140. 140.

    The EGTC Regulation in relation to the object of cooperation, discipline is pretty generic with reference to “actions” general cooperation without distinguishing between issues of cross-cutting interest and a long period or by activities.

  141. 141.

    EU Parliament, European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation as an Instrument for Promotion and Improvement of Territorial Cooperation in Europe, July 2015.

  142. 142.

    Committee of the Regions, EGTC Monitoring Report 2012, 2013, where it is reported that most of the EGTCs are legal entities of public law.

  143. 143.

    Regulation 1082/2006/EC, art. 12, as amended by Regulation 1302/2013/EU. An EGTC shall be liable for its debts. In the event of insolvency, the members are responsible depending on their contribution (fixed in the statutes). It can, however, impose a “limited EGCT” (including the phrase in their name), provided that at least one of its members is a limited liability entity.

  144. 144.

    In November 2015, there were 57 EGCTs, including 24 constituted in 2013.

  145. 145.

    Example: Hungary and France. See EU Parliament, European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation as an Instrument for Promotion and Improvement of Territorial Cooperation in Europe, cit., p. 53 et seq.

  146. 146.

    EGTCs established with specific thematic focus: Big Région EGTC was established to manage a cross-border project; EGTC TATRY Ltd. as an agency for the management of the Small Project Fund (SPF). Cf. also the EGTC: Secrétariat du Sommet de la Grande Région, European Park/Parc Européen Maritime Alps—Mercantour and Hospital de la Cerdanya.

  147. 147.

    See: – EGTC Pirineus – Cerdanya; – EGTC ArchiMed; – EGTC TRITIA Ltd.; – ZASNET EGTC; – Territorio dei comuni: Comune di Gorizia, Mestna Občina; Nova Gorica e Občina Šempeter-Vrtojba; – EGTC “Espacio Portalet”; – EGTC Spoločný region Ltd.; – EGTC “Euregio Senza Confini r.l. – Euregio Ohne Grenzen; mbH”; – Karst-Bodva EGTC; – ABAÙJ-ABAÙJBAN EGTC Ltd.; – EGTC Pons Danubii; – Rába-Duna-Vág EGTC Ltd.; – EGTC Gate to Europe Ltd.; – BODROGKÖZI EGTC Ltd.; – Eurocity of Chaves-Verín EGTC; – EGTC Parc européen/Parco europeo Alpi Marittime; – Mercantour.

  148. 148.

    See: – EGTC Euroregion Aquitane-Euskadi; – EGTC “Euregio Senza Confini r.l. – Euregio Ohne Grenzen mbH”; – Banat-Triplex Confinium Ltd. EGTC; – Raba-Duna-Vag EGTC Ltd.

  149. 149.

    See: – EGTC TRITIA Ltd.; – EGTC TATRY Ltd.; – EGTC Spoločný region Ltd.; – EGTC Karst-Bodva; – Pons Danubii EGTC.

  150. 150.

    See: – EGTC TRITIA Ltd.; – EGTC Hospital de la Cerdanya – Karst-Bodva EGTC; – Territorio dei comuni: Comune di Gorizia, Mestna Občina Nova Gorica e Občina Šempeter-Vrtojba; – EGTC “Espacio Portalet”; – Arrabona EGTC Ltd.; – Bánát-Triplex Confinium Ltd. EGTC; – Douero-Douro EGTC – EGTC Parc européen/Parco europeo Alpi Marittime –Mercantour.

  151. 151.

    EU Parliament, European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation as an Instrument for Promotion and Improvement of Territorial Cooperation in Europe, cit.

  152. 152.

    V. supra Par. 2.

  153. 153.

    Racca (2014b), cit., pp. 225–254; Regulation (EU) no. 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) no. 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the rules regarding the constitution and functioning of such groups, art. 1, c. II.

  154. 154.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, art. 39, § 5.

  155. 155.

    This possibility is expressly provided by the Regulation1302/2013/EU.

  156. 156.

    Regulation 1302/2013/EU, § 8; § 11; § 24: “The convention should also list the applicable Union and national law directly relevant to the EGTC’s activities carried out under the tasks specified in the convention, including where the EGTC is managing public services of general interest or infrastructure”.

  157. 157.

    Directive 2014/24/EU, recital no. 73: “Those rules should determine the conditions for cross-border utilisation of central purchasing bodies and designate the applicable public procurement legislation, including the applicable legislation on remedies, in cases of cross-border joint procedures, complementing the conflict of law rules of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6)”.

  158. 158.

    See Regulation 1302/2013/EU, § 5: “Under Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 EGTCs have in each Member State the most extensive legal capacity accorded to legal persons under that Member State’s national law, including the possibility of concluding agreements with other EGTCs, or other legal entities, for the purposes of carrying out joint cooperation projects to, inter alia, provide for more efficient operation of macro-regional strategies.

  159. 159.

    Racca and Cavallo Perin (2014), p. 23 e s.

References

  • Albano GL, Dini F, Spagnolo G (2008) Strumenti a Sostegno della Qualità negli Acquisti Pubblici. Quaderni Consip I:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberti C (2001) Appalti in house, concessioni in house ed esternalizzazioni. Riv it dir pubbl com, p 47 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong KA (2002) Mutual recognition. In: Barnard C, Scott J (eds) The law of the single European market: unpacking the premises. Hart, Oxford and Portland, p 231

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelet V (1957) L’attività di coordinamento nell’amministrazione pubblica dell’economia. Milano, Giuffrè, p 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassanini F (2012) Prefazione. In: Chiti MP, Natalini A (eds) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. Le pubbliche amministrazioni dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Il Mulino, Bologna, p 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassi N (2007) Appalti pubblici comunitari (gli accordi internazionali in materia di). In: Chiti MP, Cartei GF, Greco G (eds) Trattato di diritto amministrativo europeo. Giuffrè, Milano, p 551 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini M (2003) L’attività della pubblica amministrazione: principi di efficienza e di efficacia e il progetto di qualità in atto. Risorse umane nella p.a., p 349

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgi M (2012) The reform of EU directives on public procurement, speech at the conference ‘The reform of EU directives on public procurement: towards more flexibility’, London, 27 September, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Capantini M (2004) Contratto di servizio e affidamenti in house. Riv it Dir Publ Comunit, p 801

    Google Scholar 

  • Caretti P (1994) Commento all’art. 97, I comma, parte I, Cost. In: Branca G, Pizzorusso A (eds) Commentario della Costituzione, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrea S (2012) The discipline of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) between European Union law, statutory autonomy and private international law: an attempt at synthesis. Dir comm internaz, p 611

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartabia M (2010) I diritti fondamentali in Europa dopo Lisbona: verso nuovi equilibri? Giorn Dir Amm (3):221 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Casalini D (2003) L’organismo di diritto pubblico e l’organizzazione in house. Napoli, p 248

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (1987) Concentrazione e dispersione dei poteri pubblici. In: Studi in onore di Biscaretti di Ruffìa, vol I. Giuffrè, Milano, p 155

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2000) Validità del provvedimento e dell’atto amministrativo. Digesto delle Discipline Pubblicistiche, UTET Giuridica, Torino, vol. XV, p 613

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2004) La configurazione della cittadinanza amministrativa. Dir Amm pp 201–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2011) Il modulo “derogatorio”: in autoproduzione o in house providing. In: Bonura H, Cassano M (eds) L’affidamento e la gestione dei servizi pubblici locali a rilevanza economica, Torino, pp 119–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2014a) I servizi pubblici locali: modelli gestionali e destino delle utilities. In: Portaluri PL (ed) L'integrazione degli ordinamenti giuridici in Europa. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, pp 23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2014b) Concluding the report, the Conference Proceedings: Appalti pubblici: innovazione e razionalizzazione. Le strategie di aggregazione e cooperazione europea nelle nuove direttive, State Council, Rome, 14 May 2014, available in Ius Publicum Network Review, p 38

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R (2016) L’organizzazione delle pubbliche amministrazioni tra Stato nazionale e integrazione europea. In Cavallo Perin R, Police A, Saitta F (ed) A 150 anni dall’Unificazione amministrativa in Italia. L’organizzazione delle pubbliche Amministrazioni tra Stato nazionale e integrazione europea. Firenze University Press, Firenze, pp 3–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R, Casalini D (2006) L’in house providing: un’impresa dimezzata. Dir Amm, pp 51–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R, Casalini D (2009) Control over In-house providing organisations. Public Procurement Law Rev pp 227–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo Perin R, Police A, Saitta F (2016) A 150 anni dall’Unificazione amministrativa in Italia. L’organizzazione delle pubbliche Amministrazioni tra Stato nazionale e integrazione europea. Firenze University Press, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti MP (2004) A rigid Constitution for a flexibile Administration. Eur Rev Public Law p 175 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti E (2005) Il principio di buona amministrazione. In: Chiti E, Franchini C, Gnes M, Savino M, Veronelli M (eds) Diritto amministrativo europeo—Casi e materiali, Milano, p 3940

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti E (2010a) La cooperazione amministrativa. Giorn Dir Amm, p 241 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti E (2010b) Il Trattato di Lisbona. Giorn Dir amm, p 221

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti MP (2011) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo, in Studi in Onore di Alberto Romano. Editrice Scientifica, Napoli, p 163 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti MP (2012) Introduzione. Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. In: Chiti MP, Natalini A (eds) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. Le pubbliche amministrazioni dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Il Mulino, Bologna, p 19 and ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Civitarese S (2006) Art. 31. In: Cavallo Perin R, Romano A (directed by) Commentario breve al testo unico sulle autonomie locali. Breviaria Iuris, CEDAM, Padova, p 182

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocucci V (2008) Nuove forme di cooperazione territoriale transfrontaliera: il Gruppo Europeo di Cooperazione Territoriale. Riv it dir pubbl comunit, p 891 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Colaiacomo C (2009) Economicità. Riv corte conti (1):186

    Google Scholar 

  • Corso G (1995) Le norme costituzionali sull’organizzazione, in Aa. Vv., La pubblica amministrazione nella Costituzione. Riflessioni e indicazioni di riforma. In: Varenna Conference Proceedings, 1993, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese F (2011) Il coordinamento amministrativo. Dinamiche e interpretazioni, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese F (2012) Gli strumenti per la cooperazione amministrativa verticale. In: Chiti MP, Natalini A (eds) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. Le pubbliche amministrazioni dopo il Trattato di Lisbona, Il Mulino, Bologna, p. 168

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Astoli PV, Dotto D (2012) L’evoluzione dell’amministrazione europea, in www.astrid-online.it/, 7

  • De Gaspare G (1989) Consorzi amministrativi. Dig disc pubbl

    Google Scholar 

  • Deirdre Curtin D (2007) Holding (quasi-)autonomous EU administrative actors to public account. Eur Law J 13:523–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickmann R (2006) Il gruppo europeo cooperazione territoriale (gect). Foro amm CDS, p 2901

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari GF (2009) Affidamento di servizi pubblici locali: la Corte apre la strada al consorzio tra Comuni. Dir pubb comp eur, p 354

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentino L (2011) Introduzione, in L. Fiorentino (eds. by), Gli acquisti delle amministrazioni pubbliche nella repubblica federale, Il Mulino, Bologna, p. 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Franchini C (2007) Les notions d’administration indirecte et de coadministration. In: Auby JB, Dutheil De La Rochére J (eds) Droit administratif européen. Bruxelles, Bruylant, p 245 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta DU (2009) L’autonomia procedurale degli Stati membri dell’Unione europea: “Paradise Lost?”. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta DU (2010a) Coamministrazione, reti di amministrazioni, Verwaltungsverbund: modelli organizzativi nuovi o alternative semantiche alla nozione di “cooperazione amministrativa” dell’art. 10 TCE, per definire il fenomeno dell’amministrazione intrecciata? In: Contieri A, Francario F, Immordino M, Zito A (eds) L’interesse pubblico tra politica e amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, I, pp 191–202 and in Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 2009/6: 1689–1698

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta DU (2010b) Diritto ad una buona amministrazione e ruolo del nostro giudice amministrativo dopo l’entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona. Dir amm, p 601 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Gideon A, Sanchez-Graells A (2016) When are universities bound by EU public procurement rules as buyers and providers?—English universities as a case study, in Ius Publicum, no. 1, available at http://www.ius-publicum.com/pagina.php?lang=it&pag=articoli&n=1

  • Goisis F (2004) Contributo allo studio delle società in mano pubblica come persone giuridiche, Milano, p 48

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann HCH (2008) Mapping the European administrative space. West Eur Polit 31:662–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iera R, Villari A (2014) Natura giuridica, disciplina applicabile e spazi di operatività delle società pubbliche. Il dir dell’econ, p 525

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotsonis T (2009) Co-operative arrangements between public authorities in the pursuit of a public interest task: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (C-480/06). Public Procurement Law Rev, p 212

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta U (2002) Dal tipo contrattuale al modello di società: autonomia contrattuale e norme inderogabili nel nuovo diritto societario. Soc, pp 1, 12 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafarge F (2010) Administrative cooperation between member states and implementation of EU law. Eur Rev Public Law 16:597–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzoni L (2011) Le forme della democrazia partecipativa nell’ambito della cooperazione transfrontaliera. Riv it dir pubbl comunit, p 503

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2004) “In the union we trust”: trust-enhancing principles of community law. Common Mark Law Rev (2):317–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Lolli A (2005) Servizi pubblici locali e società in house: ovvero la collaborazione degli enti locali per la realizzazione di interessi omogenei. Foro amm Tar, p 1942

    Google Scholar 

  • Lottini M (2012) From ‘Administrative Cooperation’ in the Application of European Union Law to ‘Administrative Cooperation’ in the Protection of European Rights and Liberties. Eur Rev Public Law, p 131 and ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Macchia M (2010) La cooperazione amministrativa come “questione di interesse comune”. In: Chiti MP, Natalini A (eds) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. Le pubbliche amministrazioni dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Il Mulino, Bologna, p 87

    Google Scholar 

  • Macchia M (2012) Questione amministrativa e cooperazione dopo Lisbona: un nesso inscindibile. Riv It dir Pub Com, p 85

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattarella BG (2014) The Italian efforts on anti-corruption. In: Racca GM, Yukins CR (eds) Integrity and efficiency in sustainable public contracts. Balancing corruption concerns in public procurement internationally, Bruxelles, p 61 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzamuto M (2014) Fallibilità o meno delle società in house tra diritto privato e diritto pubblico, garanzia statale dei debiti degli enti pubblici (CEDU) e divieto di aiuti statali (UE). Il dir dell’econ, p 550

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzantini G (2011) La spesa per consumi finali nella pubblica amministrazione: analisi del trend delle sue componenti e ruolo di Consip. In: Fiorentino L (ed) Gli acquisti delle amministrazioni pubbliche nella repubblica federale. Il Mulino, Bologna, p 53 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Merusi F (1993) Il coordinamento e la collaborazione degli interessi pubblici e privati dopo le recenti riforme. Dir Amm, p 21 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Merusi F (2006) Pubblico e privato nell’istituto della responsabilità amministrativa ovvero la riforma incompiuta. Dir amm, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti F (2006) Il principio di “buona amministrazione” nell’Unione europea tra garanzia ed efficienza. Il diritto dell’economia (4):776 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto-Garrido E, Delgado IM (2007) European administrative law in the constitutional treaty. Oxford, p 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Noguera De La Muela B (2010) Los encargos “in house” en la Ley de Contratos del Sector Público (LCSP). Revista de administración pública (182):159 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivero F (2003) L’autonomia statutaria nella nuova disciplina dell’assemblea delle società per azioni. Riv not, pp 4, 847 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti LR (2010) Diritto ad una buona amministrazione, determinazione dell’interesse pubblico ed equità. Riv it dir pubbl com, p 789

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli C (1994) Commento all’art. 97, I, parte II, e II comma. In: Branca G, Pizzorusso A (eds) Commentario della Costituzione, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzetti FG (2000) Il Principio di leale cooperazione nell’ordinamento europeo. In: Mangiameli S (eds) L’ordinamento europeo I, I principi dell’Unione, Milano 2006, p 331 and ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponce Solé J (2011) EU law, global law and the right to good administration. In: Chiti E, Mattarella BG (eds) Global administrative law and EU administrative law. Relationships, legal issues and comparison, Part 2, p 133 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio S (2011) I modelli organizzativi di mutualisation degli acquisti nel settore sanitario e ospedaliero in Francia per la modernizzazione e professionalizzazione della fonction achat. In: Pioggia A, Civitarese Matteucci S, Racca GM, Dugato M (eds) I servizi sanitari. Organizzazione, riforme e sostenibilità: una prospettiva comparata, p 254 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio S (2012) La valutazione della qualità delle amministrazioni pubbliche. Nel Diritto editore, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio S (2013) Il comportamento contraddittorio nella revoca dell'aggiudicazione di un appalto pubblico: la responsabilità precontrattuale e il danno risarcibile. Urb e app, p 1085

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinovici I (2012) The right to be heard in the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Eur Public Law 18(1):149 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM (2003) Responsabilità della pubblica amministrazione e risarcimento del danno innanzi al giudice amministrativo. In: Garofoli R, Racca GM, De Palma M (eds) Responsabilità della pubblica amministrazione e risarcimento del danno innanzi al giudice amministrativo, Milano, p 38 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM (2010) Collaborative procurement and contract performance in the Italian healthcare sector: illustration of a common problem in European procurement. Public Procurement Law Rev 3:119–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM (2012) Le responsabilità delle pubbliche amministrazioni nella fase che precede la stipulazione del contratto pubblico. In: Scritti in Onore di Giuseppe Palma, III, Torino, p 2650

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM (2014a) Relazione al convegno Appalti pubblici: innovazione e razionalizzazione. Le strategie di aggregazione e cooperazione europea nelle nuove Direttive, Consiglio di Stato—Roma, 14 May 2014, in http://www.iuspublicum.com/repository/uploads/21_05_2015_18_30_Atti_del_Convengo_Consiglio_di_Stato_14_05_2014.pdf, p 11 et seq

  • Racca GM (2014b) Joint procurement challenges in the future implementation of the new directives. In: Lichère F, Caranta R, Treumer S (eds) Modernising public procurement: the new directive. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen, pp 234–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM (2015) Le centrali di committenza nelle nuove strategie di aggregazione dei contratti pubblici. In: Italiadecide—Rapporto 2015, cit, p 489 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM, Cavallo Perin R (2011) Organizzazioni sanitarie e contratti pubblici in Europa: modelli organizzativi per la qualità in un sistema di concorrenza. In: Pioggia A, Civitarese Matteucci S, Racca GM, Dugato M (eds) I servizi sanitari: organizzazione, riforme e sostenibilità. Una prospettiva comparata. Maggioli Editore, Rimini, p 197

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM, Cavallo Perin R (2014) Corruption as a violation of fundamental rights: reputation risk as a deterrent against the lack of loyalty. In: Racca GM, Yukins CR (eds) Integrity and efficiency in sustainable public contracts. Balancing corruption concerns in public procurement internationally, Bruxelles, p 23 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Racca GM, Ponzio S (2011) La mutualisation des achats dans le secteur de la santé publique: les centrales d’achat et les accords-cadres dans une perspective comparative. Droit Administratif, pp 7–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolli R, Comite U (2008) Efficienza, efficacia ed economicità: “percorsi aziendali” per la pubblica amministrazione (Note to State Council, section V, 4 March 2008, no. 862). Giust amm, p 326

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano A (1987) voce Autonomia nel diritto pubblico. In: Digesto disc. pubbl., Torino, II, p 31 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano Tassone A (2004) La responsabilità della P.A. tra provvedimento e comportamento (about a recent book)” in Dir Amm

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano Tassone A (2008) I “diritti” tra ordinamento interno ed ordinamento comunitario. Diritto e processo amministrativo, p 112

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez Graells A (2011) Public procurement and the EU competition rules. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli MA (2010) Il risarcimento del danno. In: Greco G (ed) Il sistema della giustizia amministrativa negli appalti pubblici in Europa, Milano, pp 67–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli MA (2012) Il risarcimento del danno. In Greco G (ed) Il sistema della giustizia amministrativa negli appalti pubblici in Europa. Conference papers, 20 May 2011—Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, p 3156

    Google Scholar 

  • Sardelli S (2015) Danno diretto o indiretto: la Suprema Corte ribadisce il discrimine tra giurisdizione contabile ed ordinaria. Giur Comm, p 464

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2012) European administrative law in the light of the treaty of Lisbon. Eur Public Law, p 294 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvaggi E (2015) Rapporti per la cooperazione penale fra Stati, Osservazioni a CGUE, 16 luglio 2015, n. 237, in Cass. Pen., 3800B

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorace D (2010) Una nuova base costituzionale europea per la pubblica amministrazione. In: Chiti MP, Natalini A (eds) Lo spazio amministrativo europeo. Le pubbliche amministrazioni dopo il Trattato di Lisbona, cit., pp 82 and ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Soverino L (2009) I servizi pubblici nell’Euroregione: nuove prospettive di diritto comunitario per la cooperazione transfrontaliera, tra Consiglio d’Europa e potere estero delle Regioni. Riv it dir pubbl comunit, p 17 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiezia F (2015) La proposta di regolamento del 17 luglio 2013 per la creazione dell’agenzia dell’unione europea per la cooperazione giudiziaria penale. Lo stato dei negoziati e le prospettive per il futuro di Eurojust, in Cass. Pen., 1614C

    Google Scholar 

  • Tátrai T (2015) Joint public procurement. J Acad Eur Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimarchi Banfi F (2007) Il diritto ad una buona amministrazione. In: Chiti MP, Greco G (eds) Trattato di diritto amministrativo europeo, Milano, I, pp 49–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimarchi Banfi F (2010) La gestione dei servizi pubblici locali e tutela della concorrenza. Amministrare XL(3):339

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimarchi M (2011) L’art. 41 della Carta europea dei Diritti Fondamentali e la disciplina dell’attività amministrativa in Italia. Dir Amm, p 537 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk AH (2009) Judicial review of integrated Adminstration in the EU. In: Hofmann HCH, Turk AH (eds) Legal challenges in Eu Adminstration law. Edward Eglar, Cheltenham, p 218

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursi R (2014) Il cammino disorientato delle c.d. società in house. Il dir dell’econ, p 557

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpe C (2015) Le nuove direttive sui contratti pubblici e l’in house providing: problemi vecchi e nuovi. In: “La nuova disciplina dei contratti pubblici tra esigenze di semplificazione, rilancio dell’economia e contrasto alla corruzione” 61st Conference on Administrative Studies, Villa Monastero, 17–19 September 2015, in www.astrid-online.it/

  • Wiggen J (2012) Public Procurement Law and Public-Public cooperation: reduced flexibility but greater legal certainty ahead? A note on the Commission’s Staff Working Paper on the application of EU public procurement law to relations between contracting authorities and proposal for a new directive. Public Procurement Law Rev, pp 225–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggen J (2014) Directive 2014/24/EU: The New Provision on Cooperation in the Public Sector. Public Procurement Law Rev, p 83 et seq

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Roberto Cavallo Perin

  2. Department of Management, University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Gabriella M. Racca

Authors
  1. Roberto Cavallo Perin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella M. Racca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Cavallo Perin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ANAC-Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione, Roma, Italy

    Francesco Merloni

  2. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Alessandra Pioggia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G.Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cavallo Perin, R., Racca, G.M. (2018). Administrative Cooperation in the Public Contracts and Service Sectors for the Progress of European Integration. In: Merloni, F., Pioggia, A. (eds) European Democratic Institutions and Administrations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72493-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72493-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72492-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72493-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation