Legitimacy and nature of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Foundation: between private law and public control

1. The facts

   The case stems from an investigation by the Milan Prosecutor's Office which, according to reports by media outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore, Il Giorno, and Sky TG24, alleged irregularities in the awarding of technological and digital services for the Winter Olympics.

   At the center of the inquiries, still at the stage of preliminary investigations, are former CEO Vincenzo Novari and several IT sector entrepreneurs. The prosecution hypothesizes that the selection of suppliers took place in exchange for promises of benefits and in violation of competition rules.

   The investigators' theory is based on the assumption that the Foundation, although established as a private-law entity, operates as an arm of the Public Administration, managing funds and interests of national importance protected by the State.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The legal pillars of the case are Art. 319 of the Criminal Code, which punishes proper corruption (an agreement to perform acts contrary to official duties), and Art. 353 of the Criminal Code on bid-rigging, which sanctions anyone who prevents or disturbs the regular conduct of tenders.

   Fundamental is Legislative Decree 36/2023 (Public Contracts Code), which defines the body governed by public law: an entity that, despite its private form, satisfies needs of general interest and is subject to public funding or control. Finally, Decree Law 16/2020 regulates the organization of the Games, establishing a supervision regime by the Court of Auditors.

3. What case law says

   The case law of the Court of Cassation has clarified that the private nature of an entity is not sufficient to exclude the qualification of public official or public service officer for its representatives. According to established jurisprudence, what matters is the actual function exercised.

   In administrative matters, courts consistently apply the principle of substance over form, establishing that foundations created to manage public resources must strictly adhere to tender procedures to ensure transparency and equal treatment among bidders.

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

   The analysis offers key practical takeaways:

   1. Substantive assessment: never rely solely on the private statutory form.
   2. Preventive compliance: adopt public tender procedures even within hybrid entities.
   3. Risk mapping: identify personnel who could be classified as public service officers in order to properly tailor 231 Models.

References: Articolo 319 Codice PenaleArticolo 353 Codice PenaleD.Lgs. 36/2023 (Codice dei Contratti Pubblici)D.L. 16/2020 (Decreto Olimpiadi)D.Lgs. 33/2013 (Decreto Trasparenza)

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 15 July 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