Search

La tesi intende analizzare l’unitarietà della vicenda contrattuale dell’appalto pubblico nell’ottica del superamento della tradizionale visione dicotomica tra la fase della scelta del contraente e quella esecutiva. Sullo sfondo della funzionalizzazione del contratto alla realizzazione dell’interesse pubblico in concreto, oggi più che mai comprensivo dei fini ambientali, sociali e occupazionali, l’attenzione sarà posta in particolare sulla compresenza in entrambe le fasi di “momenti” (e quindi di regimi) pubblicistici e privatistici. A tal fine, l’attenzione sarà principalmente riservata, da un lato, all’estensione del regime delle trattative precontrattuali anche al momento che precede quello dell’aggiudicazione e, dall’altro lato, all’applicazione dello statuto pubblicistico all’esecuzione del contratto, specialmente in relazione all’esercizio del recesso, in ciò esprimendosi con maggior forza il senso dell’unitarietà fra le due fasi. Rilevata infine la frammentazione delle giurisdizioni, valorizzata l’esigenza di un giudice specializzato sulla materia e preso atto di alcune trasformazioni (potenziali e attuali) sul fronte più generale del riparto, si cercherà di fornire una lettura atta ad estendere, a Costituzione invariata, la giurisdizione esclusiva del giudice amministrativo su tutta l’unitaria vicenda contrattuale., The thesis aims at describing the unity of the public procurement contractual “event” in the view of overcoming the traditional dichotomy between the stages of the choice of the contracting party, on one side, and the fulfillment of the deal, on the other. In the background of the “functionality” of the contract to the realization of the public interest – today including environmental and social purposes – the attention is cast on the fact that those stages have “moments” (phases) belonging to both private and public regimes. Therefore, the focus is, on the one hand, on the extension of the regime of pre-contractual negotiation (and liability) to the stage before the awarding and, on the other, on the implementation of the public regime to the fulfillment of the contract with specific reference to the right to withdraw from the contract as long as it represents the unity of the two stages. However, given the fragmentation of the jurisdiction, valorized the need for a specialized judge on the subject matter and given some transformations (potential and actual) about the rule of distribution of jurisdiction, the work gives a different interpretation of the subject matter consisting in the extension of the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative judge on the whole contractual event, of course within the present constitutional frame.

The article aims at analyzing the most recent legislative reform of the medical liability with the purpose of assessing if, in case of medical offences occurred in public hospitals, the law no. 24/2017 ensures a wider protection to the doctor involved in the malpractice event. Once explained the reasons in support of the “double track” between the civil and the accounting jurisdiction, the article focuses on the new regulation of the civil and administrative recourse actions. In particular, the study is developed in the belief that the most relevant feature of the reform is the implicit duty of the hospital to involve the doctor in the litigation since the very beginning. Furthermore, the article provides some concluding remarks linked to the issue of the “double track of jurisdiction”, in order to understand if and to what extent the public hospital is entitled to bring an action against the doctor for the damages caused to its image.