Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v Comune di Cingia de' Botti.
Date: 2005-07-21
5. By letter of 30 December 1999, that municipality informed Coname that, by decision of 21 December 1999, the municipal council had entrusted the service covering the management, distribution and maintenance of the methane gas distribution installations for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 to Padania. The latter company’s share capital is predominantly public, held by the province of Cremona and almost all the municipalities of that province. The Comune di Cingia de’ Botti holds a 0.97% share in the capital of that company.
9. It must be observed at the outset that the case in the main proceedings appears to relate, as follows from the reply given by the referring court to a request for clarification made by the Court under Article 104(5) of its Rules of Procedure, to a service described as a concession, which does not fall within the scope of either Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) or Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) (see, to that effect, Case C-324/98 Telaustria and Telefonadress  [2000] ECR I-10745, paragraph 56, and the order in Case C‑358/00 Buchhändler-Vereinigung  [2002] ECR I-4685, paragraph 28).
12. It must be recalled that Article 81 EC, which applies, according to its wording, to agreements ‘between undertakings’, does not, in principle, apply to contracts for concessions concluded between municipalities acting in their capacity as public authorities and concessionaires entrusted with responsibility for a public service (see, to that effect, Case 30/87 Bodson [1988] ECR 2479, paragraph 18).
16. It must be remembered that the award of such a concession is not governed by any of the directives by which the Community legislature has regulated the field of public contracts. In the absence of any such legislation, the consequences in Community law of the award of such concessions must be examined in the light of primary law and, in particular, of the fundamental freedoms provided for by the Treaty.
17. In that regard, it must be pointed out that, in so far as the concession in question may also be of interest to an undertaking located in a Member State other than the Member State of the Comune di Cingia de’ Botti, the award, in the absence of any transparency, of that concession to an undertaking located in the latter Member State amounts to a difference in treatment to the detriment of the undertaking located in the other Member State (see, to that effect, Telaustria and Telefonadress , paragraph 61).
18. In the absence of any transparency, the latter undertaking has no real opportunity of expressing its interest in obtaining that concession.
19. Unless it is justified by objective circumstances, such a difference in treatment, which, by excluding all undertakings located in another Member State, operates mainly to the detriment of the latter undertakings, amounts to indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality, prohibited under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (see in particular, to that effect, Case C-111/91 Commission v Luxembourg  [1993] ECR I-817, paragraph 17, Case C-337/97 Meeusen  [1999] ECR I-3289, paragraph 27, and Case C‑294/97 Eurowings Luftverkehr  [1999] ECR I-7447, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
20. With regard to the case in the main proceedings, it is not apparent from the file that, because of special circumstances, such as a very modest economic interest at stake, it could reasonably be maintained that an undertaking located in a Member State other than that of the Comune di Cingia de’ Botti would have no interest in the concession at issue and that the effects on the fundamental freedoms concerned should therefore be regarded as too uncertain and indirect to warrant the conclusion that they may have been infringed (see, to that effect, Case C-69/88 Krantz [1990] ECR I-583, paragraph 11; Case C‑44/98 BASF  [1999] ECR I-6269, paragraph 16; and the order in Case C‑431/01 Mertens [2002] ECR I‑7073, paragraph 34).
21. In those circumstances, it is for the referring court to satisfy itself that the award of the concession by the Comune di Cingia de’ Botti to Padania complies with transparency requirements which, without necessarily implying an obligation to hold an invitation to tender, are, in particular, such as to ensure that an undertaking located in the territory of a Member State other than that of the Italian Republic can have access to appropriate information regarding that concession before it is awarded, so that, if that undertaking had so wished, it would have been in a position to express its interest in obtaining that concession.
24. Even if the need for a municipality to exercise control over a concessionaire managing a public service may constitute an objective circumstance capable of justifying a possible difference in treatment, it must be pointed out that the 0.97% holding is so small as to preclude any such control, as the referring court itself observes.
26. In that regard, it must be held that a structure such as that of Padania may not be treated in the same way as a structure through which a municipality or a city manages, on an in‑house basis, a public service. As is apparent from the file, Padania is a company open, at least in part, to private capital, which precludes it from being regarded as a structure for the ‘in-house’ management of a public service on behalf of the municipalities which form part of it.
28. In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must be that Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the direct award by a municipality of a concession for the management of the public gas‑distribution service to a company in which there is a majority public holding and in which the municipality in question has a 0.97% holding, if that award does not comply with transparency requirements which, without necessarily implying an obligation to hold an invitation to tender, are, in particular, such as to enable an undertaking located in the territory of a Member State other than that of the municipality in question to have access to appropriate information regarding that concession, so that, if that undertaking had so wished, it would have been in a position to express its interest in obtaining that concession.
Costs