Regional Administrative Court of Venice section I no. 257/2018
In the case in question the Regional Administrative Court of Venice has addressed a dispute concerning the interpretation of a tender regulation’s article on the concession of a public municipal lighting service. The article stated that the “commit to finance the works required by one or more financial institutions” had to be enclosed to the economic offer. The Court has clarified that expressing the interest to finance a work is different from expressing the interest to evaluate the possibility of financing it. In the first case, if the credit institution denies the financing it will be forced to at least set out the reasons for the denial and will have to assume the responsibilities deriving from the action, if said reasons appear to be inconsistent or wrong. This obligation is not present in the second case, in which the Institution will be forced, if it does not see the project, to explain the reason of said omission. In other words, in the first case the protection of the substantial interest (to obtain the financing) is conceivable whereas in the second one only the protection of the instrumental interest (to examine the case and nothing more) can be hypothesized.