WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Brescia-Padova motorway concession company and the Valdastico motorway

Last May, without having issued a public call for tenders, the agreement between the company holding the concession for the Brescia-Padova motorway and the Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade (ANAS), the public agency responsible for managing Italy's national road network, was extended for a further nine years (until 2011).

Under the Ciampi-Costa directive(1) motorway concessions may be extended, by way of exception, only in order to settle existing disputes (failure to adjust charges, recognition of the work carried out in connection with the 1990 World Cup and the Columbus celebrations in 1992 and any other disputes on which the opinion of the State legal advisory office must be requested). In this case, however, the justification put forward for the extension was the construction of new motorway links, including the A31 Valdastico motorway which would link Vicenza to Rovigo (A4-A31 interchange) by a 60-km road link. This motorway is additional to the Valtrompia motorway, which is also included in the Brescia-Padova concession company's financial plan and was the subject of my earlier question to the Commission (4047/00)(2).

Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of this concession is incompatible with Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC(3)?

Does the Commission consider it admissible to justify this extension, without a public call for tenders being issued, on the basis of a transfer of investment to the construction of a new motorway?

Irrespective of the need for a road axis through the valley in question, does the Commission not consider that accepting such a policy of exchanges between concession holders and the public authorities in favour of new motorways undermines the priority objective of redressing the balance between road and rail transport in the European Union?

(1) Directive of the Minister of Public Works and the Minsiter for the Treasury, the Budget and Economic Planning of 20 October 1998, Protocol No 011790 of the Ministry for the Treasury.

(2) The investments authorised under the concession company's financial plan amount to a total of ITL 2466 billion ( 1 273 million).

(3) Published in OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 and OJ L 210, 21.7.1989.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The question put by the Honourable Member comes under the more general framework of the procedure for granting motorway concessions in the various Member States. The Commission has asked all Member States to provide detailed information of their position in this respect.

The Commission is in the process of examining information provided by the authorities in Italy and in the other Member States, so as to establish a coherent position for all the motorway concessions in the Community, bearing in mind the considerable economic implications involved.

The Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities for all information needed to assess whether the public contracts for the construction of a new motorway link between Vicenza and Rovigo and the extension of the concession to the company holding the concession for the Brescia-Padova motorway to which the Honourable Member refers comply with Community law. If, on examining this information, the Commission finds that the procedures followed are incompatible with Community law, it may be relied upon to draw appropriate conclusions.

As regards the impact of extending concessions on redressing the balance between road and rail transport, as a general rule the Commission considers it preferable for direct users of the infrastructure to bear the cost of its use. However, in its preparation of the White Paper on the Common Transport Policy, which is shortly to be adopted, the Commission is examining measures to redress the balance between road and rail transport in the Community, in particular, by revising the rules on charges and financing the infrastructure. One particular point to emerge, in cases where agreements on financing the rail infrastructure are attached to the extension of concessions, is that such arrangements may indeed help to redress the balance between road and rail transport.

Moreover, as already pointed out to the Honourable Member in response to Written Question No P-4047/00, the Commission would stress that the extension of a motorway concession by a public body, possibly in breach of Community rules on the award of public contracts, must also be examined in the light of Community rules governing state aid in the transport sector, where the beneficiary of the operation is not required to bear the same risks as private investors in a market economy.