(15)

In the case in point, the notice imposing public service obligations published in the Official Journal at the request of the Italian Republic contains several provisions which raise serious doubts as to their conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation, and are therefore likely to restrict unduly the development of the routes concerned; in particular: (a) No detailed explanation based on an economic analysis of the air transport market between Sardinia and the rest of Italy has been provided, to justify the need for the new public service obligations, their appropriateness and their proportionality to the objective. (b) The six routes covered by the previous notice and included in the new one have not been assessed. (c) It is not evident that the 12 other routes on which public service obligations have been imposed since 1 January 2005 are vital for the economic development of the regions of Sardinia where the airports concerned are located; considering in particular: — The nature of the routes concerned, — It has not been shown that these routes are vital for the economic development of the regions of Sardinia in which the airports concerned are located, — The existence of alternative air routes which allow an adequate and continuous service to be provided to the airports concerned, via the main Italian hubs linked in a satisfactory manner with Sardinia. (d) The requirement that interested carriers operate all 18 routes to which the public service obligations apply as a single package is a particularly significant restriction of the principle of the freedom to provide services. It is in breach of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination; considering in particular: — it has not been shown that grouping all these routes together is vital for the economic development of the regions of Sardinia in which the airports concerned are located, — the risk of unjustified discrimination between carriers, where only the largest ones have the means to operate in such conditions, — in addition, such a requirement is contrary to the need for the Member State imposing the public service obligations to take account in its assessment of the combined effect of all air carriers operating or intending to operate on the route (6). In fact, the Italian authorities wanted to impose the requirement that the eighteen routes be operated as a single package in order to finance the operating losses of thin routes by the expected proceeds of the operation of the most important routes. Such cross-subsidisation is alien to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92. (e) The requirement to provide a security of a particularly high amount is also likely to create unjustified discrimination between interested carriers, where only the largest ones have the means to offer such guarantees. (f) The very short time, 15 days from the publication of the notice in the Official Journal given to interested carriers to accept the public service obligations and twenty two days to begin operating (on 1 January 2005), are likely to create unjustified discrimination between them. In reality, it is impossible for a carrier not already operating on routes to Sardinia to complete the legal and administrative formalities in the time allowed and mobilise the resources needed to set up such an operation. (g) The requirement, in point 4.8 of the notice, that reduced fares must be applied to passengers solely because of their place of birth (in this case Sardinia) or for the sole reason that they have family links with such persons may in fact be unlawful discrimination based on nationality (see for example case C-338/01 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR p. I-00721).