Verlingue Italy’s participation forms part of a broader strategy to consolidate the Group’s position within the Worldwide Broker Network, with an increasing focus on multinational programmes and the integrated management of clients operating across multiple jurisdictions. The Italian delegation was represented by David Lee Rodriguez and Massimiliano Aloi.

Throughout the conference, discussions focused on key operational topics that are becoming increasingly central to the industry, including:

- the management of multinational insurance programmes;

- cross-border coordination and alignment with local regulatory frameworks;

- the evolving role of the broker as a central point of coordination between global client needs and local expertise.

“We are delighted to take part in the WBN Conference in Philadelphia,” said Rodriguez, “a highly relevant international event that provides a valuable opportunity for dialogue, professional development and the creation of new business relationships. Being present at an event of this calibre confirms Verlingue Spa’s commitment to strengthening its presence in global markets and to continuing to deliver increasingly innovative and effective insurance solutions to its clients”.

In this context, Verlingue’s participation represented a strategic opportunity to reinforce relationships with international partners and to foster new avenues for collaboration.

The case

On 9 September 2025, a municipality in Calabria published a prior market consultation notice, as a preliminary step to launching a negotiated procedure (Article 50(b) of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023), for the award of a school catering service covering nursery, primary and lower secondary schools.

Four economic operators responded to the notice. However, one of them, without any explanation, was not subsequently invited to submit a tender.

The excluded operator challenged the award decision, and the claim was upheld on the following grounds.

Grounds for the decision

Article 50, read in conjunction with Annex I.1 of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023, provides that in the case of a direct award (i.e. awarding a contract without a formal tender procedure), the contracting authority retains discretion in selecting the contractor, even where several economic operators have been consulted in advance.

However, this discretion is not unfettered. It must comply with the general principles set out in Law No. 241/1990, including transparency, publicity, and—crucially—the obligation to state reasons for administrative decisions, a principle also rooted in constitutional law.

It follows that a direct award which fails to explain why an operator, despite having expressed interest, was not invited to submit a bid is unlawful, as it breaches the duty to provide reasons established under Law No. 241/1990.

For further details:

- TAR Calabria, Judgment No. 74/2026;

- Article 50 and Annex I.1 of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023;

- Articles 1 et seq., Law No. 241/1990.

Article 35 of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023 provides that contracting authorities must ensure digital access to the full set of tender documents, including bidders’ technical offers (paragraphs 2 and 3). However, technical proposals may be withheld where they qualify as technical or commercial secrets, provided this is duly justified by the bidder (paragraph 4).

Conversely, paragraph 5 allows access to such confidential information where it is strictly necessary for the purposes of legal defence in relation to the procurement procedure (the so-called “automatic defensive access right”).

The European Commission’s position

The European Commission has launched infringement proceedings against Italy, arguing that granting automatic precedence to defensive access conflicts with Article 21 of Directive 2014/24/EU. This provision rules out national frameworks that allow unconditional access to technical or commercial secrets solely to ensure judicial protection (Order of 10 June 2025, Case C-686/2024, Court of Justice of the European Union).

Accordingly, domestic legislation cannot establish an automatic priority for the effectiveness of judicial protection. Instead, it must ensure a proportionate balancing of the interests involved, failing which it risks breaching both the principle of proportionality and the effective protection of confidential information.

Italian case law aligns

More recently, the Council of State, in judgment No. 10036/2025, clarified that defensive access to confidential information does not automatically override confidentiality concerns. Even where a request is made for defence purposes, public authorities are required to balance the right to judicial protection against the need to safeguard technical and commercial secrets.

For further details:

- Council of State, Judgment No. 10036/2025;

- Article 35, Legislative Decree No. 36/2023;

- Article 21 of Directive 2014/24/EU;

- Order of 10 June 2025, Case C-686/2024, Court of Justice of the European Union.

At the heart of the issue remains the fact that the cost is to be borne entirely by the individual employee. This stems from the prohibition set out in Law No. 244/2007, which prevents public entities from insuring their officials against risks arising from the performance of their institutional duties, including liability for damage caused to the State.

What will happen in 2026?

With the postponement, the Government intends to carry out a comprehensive review of the framework, aiming to make the insurance requirement more sustainable while preserving the core objective of the reform: safeguarding public finances and ensuring responsible, transparent management of public resources.

As a result, 2026 will serve as a transitional year. Public administrations will be able to assess the impact of the reform, revise internal procedures, update delegated responsibilities, and work towards a system that—by 2027—can be implemented in a clearer, more coherent way that properly reflects the complexity of administrative action.

The new deadline also creates an opportunity to shape a more balanced regulatory framework, capable of combining legal certainty, economic sustainability, and the operational continuity of public administration.

For further details:
Decree-Law No. 200 of 31 December 2025, converted into Law No. 26/2026;
Law No. 244/2007.

The digital form complements the traditional paper version and carries the same legal validity, provided it is signed using an advanced electronic signature, typically via SPID or the Electronic Identity Card.

When the digital form can be used

The conditions remain aligned with the traditional process. The digital claim form can only be used when:

- no more than two vehicles are involved;
- there are no serious injuries;
- both drivers agree on how the accident occurred.
It is therefore designed to streamline the handling of the most common, low-complexity claims.

How the process works

Each insurer integrates the service into its apps or customer portals. The process is guided and structured:

- access via the app or secure customer area;
- entry of driver, vehicle and policy details;
- indication of location, date and time;
- reconstruction of the event, often using predefined diagrams;
- upload of photos taken at the scene;
- signature via SPID or equivalent systems.
The document is transmitted in real time to the insurer’s systems. Drivers can also submit their own statement independently, even if the other party does not use the digital tool.

Benefits and limitations of the new system

Digitalisation brings clear operational advantages:

- fewer completion errors;
- faster claims handling;
- elimination of paper-based processes;
- enhanced security through digital identification.
The obligation applies to insurers, not policyholders. The paper form remains valid and available, ensuring continuity for those less comfortable with digital tools.

Luigi Mercurio, President of AIPED, has emphasised the importance of maintaining an inclusive approach. A fully enforced digital shift could otherwise risk excluding part of the user base.

An operational shift, not just a technological one

The digital claim form represents a tangible evolution in claims management. It reduces processing times, improves data quality and strengthens anti-fraud controls.

For policyholders and intermediaries alike, the real value lies not only in the technology itself, but in the ability to use it effectively. Ensuring access to platforms and verifying policy data in advance becomes an integral part of risk prevention.