Decision of the week · TAR Catania, 11 August 2026
The Catania Regional Administrative Court upholds the revocation of a university PPP for building refurbishment, yet awards the promoter the indemnity under Article 21-quinquies. With two procedural rulings of weight: time limits running from access to documents, and the limits of liability-exclusion clauses.
T.A.R. Sicilia, Catania section, Second Chamber, judgment of 11 August 2026, No 2353 (hearing of 11 June 2026)
A university had launched a public-private partnership for the seismic and energy refurbishment and the management of its buildings, declaring the promoter's proposal to be in the public interest and obtaining ministerial co-funding. After the tender had been launched, with the promoter as sole participant, the administration revoked the entire procedure, citing reduced public funding, supervening financial difficulties and a fresh assessment of the public interest following a change of governance. The promoter challenged the revocation, seeking its annulment and, in the alternative, damages or an indemnity.
The administration and the intervener had objected that the challenge was out of time, having been notified more than thirty days after the revocation was communicated. The Court rejects the objection with a principle of system: where the measure states its reasons by reference to underlying documents which are not made available, the “full knowledge” that triggers the time limit arises only upon disclosure of the documents, promptly requested through access. A claimant cannot be required to litigate “in the dark”. Here access had been sought eight days after the communication and the challenge notified within thirty days of disclosure: in time.
On the merits, the Court recalls that Article 21-quinquies of Law No 241/1990 permits revocation even upon a simple “fresh assessment of the original public interest”: a true jus poenitendi, allowing the administration to consider no longer expedient an arrangement that was perfectly lawful when adopted, even where the material facts are unchanged. Following the disclosure ordered by the Court (the administration had been directed to file the underlying documents and provide clarifications under Articles 46, 63 and 65 of the Code of Administrative Procedure), the Chamber finds the reasons, resting on reduced ministerial funding, the resulting shortfall and the operation's impact on budgetary balance, adequate on the whole, “despite some untidiness”. The annulment claim is therefore dismissed.
This is the most interesting part of the ruling. Until the tender is launched, the promoter holds a mere expectation: the administration may withdraw, as a rule without damages or indemnity, and a clause excluding financial claims is in principle lawful. But once the tender has been launched on the promoter's proposal, that position becomes a legally qualified expectation, reinforced here by the promoter having been the sole participant. And a clause making any liability depend on the administration's mere will would be null and void: total exclusion does not hold where revocation follows the launch of the tender and a qualified reliance has arisen.
On the Article 21-quinquies indemnity before award, the judgment grants it, the revocation having intervened after the choice of the promoter and the launch of the tender, and upholds the claim. Subject to the limit in paragraph 1-bis: where revocation affects negotiated relationships, the indemnity covers actual loss only. In practice: the costs of preparing the proposal and the project, fees of designers and of advisers, for studies and for surveys, and the costs of the tender bid. Loss of profit remains outside: the pre-contractual liability route, which would allow it within the limits of the negative interest, failed here for want of specific allegation and proof of the contractual opportunities forgone.
For administrations, the ruling confirms the breadth of the power to revoke on grounds of financial sustainability, but reminds them that reasons given by reference carry a procedural price: they postpone the time limit for challenge and may force disclosure in court. For promoters and businesses, it sets three fixed points: after the tender is launched, reliance is qualified and total exclusion clauses cannot erase it; the indemnity for actual loss is an actionable claim, to be documented item by item; loss of profit requires concrete proof of alternative opportunities forgone, to be assembled before litigation, not during it.
Article 21-quinquies of Law No 241/1990; Articles 46, 63, 65 and 120 of the Code of Administrative Procedure; Article 193(12) of Legislative Decree No 36/2023.