<\/p>\n
The recent regulatory and jurisprudential evolution regarding maritime state-owned concessions requires a careful return to pleasure boating, while avoiding automatically assimilating it to beach resort concessions. Marinas, tourist landing places and mooring points find specific regulation in D.P.R. 2 December 1997, n. 509, as well as in the Navigation Code. The distinction became particularly evident after Decree-Law n. 131\/2024, which excluded concessions relating to structures dedicated to pleasure boating from the regime of Articles 3 and 4 of Law n. 118\/2022. However, exiting that particular legislative regime by no means means exiting the rules of competition.<\/p>\n
On this point, the most recent jurisprudence offers rather clear indications. Italian Consiglio di Stato<\/em>, Sec. VII, 23 October 2025, n. 8236, stated that the exclusion of concessions for pleasure boating from the extension provided for by Law n. 118\/2022 does not imply their exemption from European principles and the need for procedures consistent with the principles of competition. In the same sense, the Tuscany Regional Administrative Court (TAR Toscana), Sec. IV, 3 March 2026, n. 452 expressed itself, reiterating the need for the award to take place through procedures consistent with national and European public procurement principles. The issue, therefore, seems to be progressively shifting from whether a competitive comparison must be ensured to how this comparison must be concretely organized.<\/p>\n D.P.R. n. 509\/1997 provides for a peculiar procedure, normally initiated on private initiative: the application is published, the submission of observations and competing applications is permitted, and the various proposals are subsequently examined by the Administration. It is a different model from the traditional tender, in which the object, conditions and selection criteria are defined in advance by the Administration. The most interesting question today therefore concerns the way in which this procedure can be coordinated with the standards of publicity, transparency and equal treatment required by European law. The Council of State recently intervened on the topic, Sec. VII, 4 February 2026, n. 935, in the case relating to the redevelopment of the Talamone landing place. The ruling contains critical considerations on the procedure concretely followed, but fits into a particularly complex case, characterized by the relationship with port planning, the presence of hydraulic control works, previous planning choices of the Municipality and the insufficient definiteness of some contents of the proposal. Precisely this last aspect assumes particular interest in a broader perspective. According to the Council of State, a proposal with contents that are not precisely determined and susceptible to subsequent modifications can compromise equal treatment, because it does not allow potential competitors to understand precisely the object of the initiative on which to formulate an alternative proposal. It would therefore probably be excessive to derive from the judgment a general incompatibility of D.P.R. n. 509\/1997 with European law. However, the ruling represents a significant signal regarding the need to apply the special procedure while ensuring, right from the publication of the application, sufficient definiteness of the operation and effective conditions of comparison among operators.<\/p>\n Within the framework of usable instruments, the possibility of resorting to consensual modules of administrative action also deserves mention. Art. 12 of Legislative Decree n. 36\/2023 establishes that, for what is not expressly provided for by the Code, the provisions of Law n. 241\/1990 apply to award procedures and other administrative activities regarding public contracts. The reference therefore makes it possible to question the possible use of supplementary or substitute agreements to the measure referred to in Art. 11 of Law n. 241\/1990, especially in complex operations in which multiple public and private interests need to be coordinated. However, even this tool cannot be considered an alternative to public tender rules. The agreement may eventually contribute to defining some aspects of the operation or the subsequent relationship between Administration and operator, but it cannot replace competitive comparison when this is required by the legal system.<\/p>\n The issue assumes even greater significance when the concession does not only concern the use of the state asset, but includes the construction or redevelopment of the infrastructure and the subsequent management of the marina. The Civil Court of Cassation, Sec. V, 18 October 2025, n. 27810, recently recalled the complex nature of awarding the construction and management of a marina, in which the concession of the state asset is combined with services functional to the operation of pleasure boating and profiles specific to work and service concessions can coexist. In this context, public-private partnership and project finance retain a particular relevance. The previous Contracts Code contained an express reference to structures dedicated to pleasure boating within the scope of project finance. Legislative Decree n. 36\/2023 does not reproduce that specific sector provision, but today regulates public-private partnership and project finance in general terms. Particularly interesting, for the purposes of comparison with D.P.R. n. 509\/1997, is the current regulation of Art. 193 of the Code, as modified by the corrective decree. Here too the initiative can come from the private party, but the competitive procedure is today more structured: after the verification of public interest, the granting authority makes the proposal known and sets a deadline of not less than sixty days so that other operators can present proposals relating to the same intervention; a comparative evaluation follows. The selected project, once the evaluation and approval procedure is completed, is then placed as the basis for the subsequent tender, to be awarded with the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender. It is precisely this comparison between the two models that proves particularly interesting today. On the one hand, D.P.R. n. 509\/1997, as a special regulation of pleasure boating, built around the publication of the private party’s application and the possible presentation of competing applications. On the other hand, Art. 193 of Legislative Decree n. 36\/2023, which retains the private initiative typical of project financing, but inserts it into a procedural sequence in which publication, comparison between proposals and subsequent tender are expressly articulated.<\/p>\n Marina port activities thus retain their own specificity compared to tourist-recreational concessions, but cannot be considered exempt from competition rules. The most recent rulings seem to progressively shift attention from the question of extensions to the quality of the procedure through which the operator is selected. D.P.R. n. 509\/1997 continues to represent the special reference for marinas, landing places and mooring points. At the same time, however, the new framework of project finance offers an updated model of management of private initiative that can be particularly interesting precisely for operations in which state concession, infrastructure investment and economic management are closely connected. The question for the future of tourist ports could then be precisely this: how to coordinate the specificity of the 1997 procedure with the most recent public-private partnership tools, building procedures capable of enhancing private initiative without sacrificing transparency, contestability and equal treatment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n by Avv. Federico Tassinari<\/strong><\/a>, Partner, Ravenna office \u2013 federico.tassinari@studiozunarelli.com<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent regulatory and jurisprudential evolution regarding maritime state-owned concessions requires a careful return to pleasure boating, while avoiding automatically assimilating it to beach resort concessions. Marinas, tourist landing places and mooring points find specific regulation in D.P.R. 2 December 1997, n. 509, as well as in the Navigation Code. The distinction became particularly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":48348,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[203],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nD.P.R. n. 509\/1997 put to the test of competition<\/h2>\n
A space also for consensual modules?<\/h2>\n
The return to relevance of project financing<\/h2>\n
A regulation to be re-read in light of the new tools<\/h2>\n