Derivati della p.a. e possibile danno erariale del consulente

Il contributo commenta una recente sentenza della Cassazione in merito al possibile danno erariale causato da una banca d’affari nella negoziazione e “attivazione” di un contratto derivato, per conto della p.a., l’attuale Mef, dalla cui attivazione emerse, anni addietro, l’esborso a carico delle casse dello Stato italiano di somme molto significative. Nell’esaminare il dictum, il contributo cerca di mettere in luce la linea di demarcazione fra consulente e soggetto incardinato nella p.a., al fine di definire i limiti oggettivi e soggettivi della “responsabilità erariale”.

The contribution comments on a recent court decision of the Italian Supreme Court relating to the potential “public accounting damages” caused by an investment bank (Morgan Stanley) in the negotiation and handling of a derivative contract, on behalf of the Italian Public sector, more specifically the Treasury or, nowadays, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (the “MEF”). A decade ago, the negotiation and activation of this contract caused the Italian State to pay an egregious amount of money. In examining and dissecting the decisum, the paper aims to clarify the current demarcation line between the adviser, on the one hand, and on the other hand the individuals, such as top officers, properly embedded in the Public Sector, both acting on behalf and/or to the benefit of the
Public Sector. Entailed to this goal is to set out the objective and subjective boundaries of the “public accounting liability”, a peculiar concept of the Italian legal system, between liability of the proper employees, and the one of the mere adviser.