Sommario:
1. Scopo e limiti dell’indagine: la tenuta del principio di funzionalizzazione a fronte del recesso dal contratto di appalto pubblico.
2. Gli orienta- menti dottrinali e giurisprudenziali relativi alla natura giuridica del recesso.
3. Rilievi critici sull’adeguatezza di un sindacato fondato sull’abuso del diritto.
4. Precisazioni in ordine all’impiego dei concetti di potere pubblico, potere privato e diritto potestativo
5. Il dovere di motivazione e l’inammissibilità del recesso ad nutum. Brevi riflessioni sull’unitarietà della vicenda contrattuale.
6. Conclusioni.
Abstract The article aims at analyzing the withdrawal of the public procurement contract (art. no. 109 of the legislative decree no. 50/2016) in order to understand whether, and to what extent, the contracting authority must provide a statement of reasons for its choice to break the contractual relationship. The main idea is that the inclusion of the withdrawal of the contract under the traditional scheme of private law (withdrawal ad nutum) could jeopardize the first but provisory outcome reached through the selection phase: in other words, it could compromise the goals that the Directive 2014/24/ UE proposes to reach through the public administration and its public procurement activity. Since the judicial control through the abuse of law is unsuitable to guarantee a proper control over the act and over its functionality to the public interest, the proposal is to consider the whole activity of the public administration (even the contractual one) under the same and unique “public charter”, which requires a steady practice of procedural schemes and implies a persistent functionality. Given the “uniqueness” of the contractual framework, some concluding remarks are provided in order to revise the actual distribution of jurisdiction.