Legislative Shielding of Public Works: Commissioner Powers and Legality Profiles

1. The facts

   Recent news has highlighted two main strands regarding the management of major works. According to reports from Il Sole 24 Ore and Ingenio, the so-called Bridge Decree (D.L. 35/2023) reactivated the process for the Sicily-Calabria link by normatively shielding the 2011 contracts. Following political complaints, the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office opened an exploratory file to verify the correctness of the contractual reactivation without a new tender.

   Simultaneously, as reported by La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, the Anas inquiry involved Tommaso Verdini and other consultants, investigated for corruption and illicit trafficking of influence. According to the prosecution's hypothesis, the group allegedly attempted to influence the appointment of Extraordinary Commissioners and the drafting of derogation rules to favor specific companies in tenders. Currently, the Anas proceeding is in the preliminary investigation phase, with some precautionary measures confirmed by the Review Court.

2. 

   Legal framework

   The regulatory core lies in Art. 4 of D.L. 32/2019 (Sblocca Cantieri), which allows the appointment of Commissioners with powers to derogate from any legal provision other than criminal law and constraints stemming from EU law. This power clashes with D.Lgs. 36/2023 (Public Contracts Code), which regulates ordinary procurement procedures.

   An insurmountable limit is established by D.Lgs. 159/2011 (Anti-Mafia Code), the checks of which remain mandatory. Finally, D.L. 44/2023 restricted the concurrent control of the Court of Auditors on PNRR works and major commissions, reducing ongoing oversight and shifting any assessment of financial damage to a phase following the completion of the works.

3. Jurisprudential trends

   Constitutional jurisprudence has clarified that the use of provision-laws is legitimate only in extraordinary and urgent conditions, provided it does not violate the principles of reasonableness and equality. However, accounting judges have expressed concern that the commissioner system might become the rule rather than the exception, effectively emptying competition guarantees.

   Administrative courts, for their part, have reiterated that derogations granted to Commissioners must be interpreted restrictively: they can never justify the violation of general EU Treaty principles, such as equal treatment among economic operators and transparency.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Regulatory monitoring: Lawyers must pay close attention to the genesis of special rules, as their constitutional illegitimacy can cascade and invalidate all subsequent administrative acts.

   2. Compliance and advice: Companies participating in commissioned projects must adopt strict legality protocols to prevent informal contacts with public administration from being interpreted as trafficking of influence.

   3. Third-party protection: For excluded competitors, the path to a regional administrative court appeal remains difficult in the face of a provision-law; it is necessary to prompt a constitutional challenge or a report to ANAC.

References: D.L. 32/2019D.Lgs. 36/2023D.Lgs. 159/2011D.L. 44/2023Art. 323 c.p.Art. 353 c.p.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 12 May 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction