A wall against the wall with the EU on port taxation does not seem to be producing for Italy

Now that the EU Commission has effectively asked Italy to vary these rules ( of the 4th December 2020), it seems to us that it is an idle question to ask if in Brussels of Italian port they do not understand anything or rather make merchant ears. A really good question useless either if addressed by those who believe that the government in the past has done little to defend its thesis at the European Commission both from those who consider that Brussels there is no one -- in good faith or bad faith -- who can understand why the Italian port regulations.

In addition to questioning one's own reasons, with a view to find a solution it would perhaps be appropriate to ask why the European Commission persists in asking Italy what the latter refuses to grant.

The Commission's main task is to propose new laws and to help define the Union's strategy European. The latter can be regarded as organization of the United Nations of Europe and believe that the commission is one of the bodies that contribute to the maintenance of social and economic "good relations" between European nations. It's not like that. The EU is not the UN. The European Union has some important common objectives. But it has very different and more concrete issues, starting from the task of establishing an economic and Monetary. This would be enough to make us understand why the European Commission is constantly trying to harmonise the rules governing the economic activities of the States of the Union, and therefore because it tries to do so also with respect to the the port.

The governance systems of Northern European ports and Mediterranean countries are very different. Integraled entrepreneurial you can only talk about the ports of the United Kingdom united kingdom, where companies not only manage their activities in their own right port areas, but they also own the port areas. You can however schematically talk about a purely publicistic nature port authorities of EU States on the Mediterranean, in particular of Italy with its AdSPs that are precisely non-economic public authorities, and instead of the private nature of the port authorities of northern European states as they similar to public limited companies even if they are jointly owned generally by local and state public authorities.

It is obvious that, by carrying out its task of harmonizing different port rules, the EU Commission must impose rules that avoid the possibility of distortions of the market, in particular implemented with the granting of State aid in violation of specific European regulations. Under this appearance, beyond the wide "grey areas" that characterise both systems, it seems easier to establish these infringements under the governance regime northern European port rather than south European port. The authorities northern European ports are well aware of the EU's preference for governance system deemed more "transparent".

Port authorities have been trudging in recent years south Europeans have done nothing but repeatedly urge the European Commission to take note of the validity of their governance regime, but they did not try to impose it as reference for European port legislation. Perhaps they believed to turn to the United Nations of Europe instead of the European Union European Union, or perhaps they knew that they had no chance of Success. The fact is that, today, it seems unthinkable that the European Commission may change its opinion on its conviction of the entrepreneurial nature of area management port authorities entrusted by the port authorities.

For the European Union, as reiterated by the European Commission and court of justice of the EU, the profits produced by ports must be taxed, whatever the legal form of the operator under which these economic activities fall (these include the commercial exploitation of infrastructure through a synagmatic contractual relationship).

Several EU nations have long taken note of this and, finally, Spain, have decided to adapt their laws without distorting their governance regime. So far on the other hand, Italy has not even considered the hypothesis of give in one step, as if you cannot safeguard the nature of the advertising of the mission of the System Authorities port system, while introducing changes to the governance system, such as for example spain did through the identification - in contradictory to the officials of the European Commission - of those activities of a purely public nature carried out by the entities, and therefore excluded from European state aid rules, disbanding them from what are to be considered activities Economic.

Perhaps it is time for the Government of Rome to consider this path. The wall against the wall does not seem productive for Italy, which is remained the last EU nation where it is believed that either you have "public" up to the marrow or you are "private" with the consequent deduction -- wrong -- that ports lose their possibility of obtaining state support.

In conclusion, instead of going into an ideological confrontation, it is perhaps more profitable for Italy to negotiate a adaptation of its port legislation, also to the benefit of the of a European Union that is not the one desired by pro-Europeans or the sovereignists who are trying to dismantle it.

Bruno Bellio