Abstract

The issue of exceptions to ordinary public contract rules in managing risks and emergencies caused by volcanological phenomena raises several considerations. This topic can be analyzed through an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on the relationship between technology and law.

To assess the legitimacy of applying derogatory rules (Article 140, d.lgs. n. 36/2023, Italian Public Contracts Code), it is essential to consider the three-phase structure of volcanic risk: risk assessment, hazard assessment, and event mitigation. The technical nature of these issues necessitates a preliminary examination of the legal implications of using Article 140 in the case of volcanic events.

The first aspect concerns defining the concept of paramount urgency—a prerequisite for derogating from ordinary legislation—and determining which events (whether those that have already occurred or those yet to happen) fall within the scope of this provision. In this context, the analysis focuses on the practices of individual local authorities that apply Article 140, revealing significant interpretative and methodological differences.

Another crucial aspect is the organizational framework. Current legislation allows not only Regions but also metropolitan cities and municipalities to undertake emergency works under Article 140. This paper examines the benefits of centralizing these responsibilities at the regional level from two perspectives.

First, centralization could help reduce potential corruption in areas where unforeseeable maintenance events frequently occur. Second, it would prevent disparities in decision-making, where one municipality might recognize conditions of paramount urgency while a neighboring one, exercising its own discretion, might not. Centralization would thus promote uniformity in decision-making.

Two additional aspects require further analysis. The first concerns the necessity of effective ex-post control mechanisms, given the central role of assessing conditions of extreme urgency. However, the limited timeframes involved risk undermining the effectiveness of such controls. The second aspect examines whether the exception to procurement rules also extends to landscape authorizations and environmental impact assessments. If not, and if ex-ante approval remains necessary, the intended simplification of economic operators’ activities would be significantly hindered.

Table of Contents

1. Urgency and emergency between administration and law
2. The multiform concept of urgency in the Public Contracts Code
3. Volcanic risk in the age of uncertainty
   • Volcanic risk as a condition for applying urgent procurement procedures
4. An efficient ex-post control activity as an essential requirement for system sustainability
5. Emergency response procedures, volcanic risk, and urban planning: seeking balance for administrative simplification
6. Conclusions