The comment concerns the ruling of the Court of Rome, Section II, 31 August 2020, n. 11784, whose motivation is based on three main statements. The first: the resolution of the Council with which the Municipality provides, in favor of the borrowing concessionaire, a surety guarantee for investments in the construction or renovation of sports facilities owned by the municipality is provisional in nature. The second: the responsible manager intervenes in the subsequent loan contract on the basis of the express legitimacy granted to him by the resolution itself. The third: the art. 207, T.U.E.L., in the part in which it provides for the possibility for the local authority to issue guarantees, is not mandatory in nature and therefore allows local authorities the right to provide guarantees other than the typical guarantee hypothesis regulated by the civil code. The analysis of the ruling highlights the connection of the motivation with the principle of separation between politics and administration and the main implications of the case from the perspective of the accounting rules aimed at limiting the indebtedness of institutions.
Il commento ha ad oggetto la pronuncia del Tribunale Roma, Sez. II, 31 agosto 2020, n. 11784, la cui motivazione si fonda su tre principali affermazioni. La prima: ha natura provvedimentale la delibera del Consiglio con la quale il Comune presta, in favore del concessionario mutuatario, garanzia fideiussoria per investimenti nella realizzazione o ristrutturazione di impianti sportivi di proprietà comunale. La seconda: il dirigente responsabile interviene nel successivo contratto di mutuo sulla base della legittimazione espressa riconosciutagli dalla delibera medesima. La terza: l’art. 207, T.U.E.L., nella parte in cui prevede per l’ente locale la possibilità di rilasciare fideiussioni, non ha natura imperativa e pertanto ammette la facoltà per gli enti locali di prestare garanzie diverse dall’ipotesi fideiussoria tipica disciplinata dal codice civile. L’analisi della pronuncia evidenzia il collegamento della motivazione con il principio di separazione tra politica e amministrazione e le principali implicazioni della fattispecie nell’ottica delle regole contabili dirette a limitare l’indebitamento degli enti.
Fideiussoria "atipica" e garanzia dell'ente locale
Livia Mercati
2021
Abstract
The comment concerns the ruling of the Court of Rome, Section II, 31 August 2020, n. 11784, whose motivation is based on three main statements. The first: the resolution of the Council with which the Municipality provides, in favor of the borrowing concessionaire, a surety guarantee for investments in the construction or renovation of sports facilities owned by the municipality is provisional in nature. The second: the responsible manager intervenes in the subsequent loan contract on the basis of the express legitimacy granted to him by the resolution itself. The third: the art. 207, T.U.E.L., in the part in which it provides for the possibility for the local authority to issue guarantees, is not mandatory in nature and therefore allows local authorities the right to provide guarantees other than the typical guarantee hypothesis regulated by the civil code. The analysis of the ruling highlights the connection of the motivation with the principle of separation between politics and administration and the main implications of the case from the perspective of the accounting rules aimed at limiting the indebtedness of institutions.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
