Zacchaeus asks for more powers from the Transport Regulation Authority in the field of port concessions

Referring to Article 3 of the bill, relating to the concession of state port areas, Zacchaeus said to consider that, 'despite the uncertainty of the regulatory framework and of the consequent division of competences, the Authority can play a fundamental role in ensuring processes uniform and transparent also for the assignment of state-owned areas and port docks. It is certainly positive - it has observed the president of ART- the provision of the use of public tendering procedures for awards, as well as partial relaxation of the principle of the so-called prohibition of cumulation which, in its original version, prevented, in absolute terms, to the company to be a concessionaire also of another state-owned area in the same port. In the current article 3 - noted Zacchaeus - the prohibition of cumulation no longer applies to ports of international and national economic importance, in which, on the other hand, the cumulation of concessions is allowed, in order to promote the growth of operators and the achievement of economy of scale, preparatory to the comparison with transport operators ever larger and more globalized".

According to the President of the Regulatory Authority of the Transport, "the absence of references to Article 37 of the Navigation Code, from therefore be considered still in force, which provides that, in the presence of of several applications for concession in relation to the same good of the maritime state, the applicant must be preferred which "offers greater guarantees of profitable use of the granting and proposing to make use of this for a use which, to judgment of the administration, responds to a more relevant public interest" (emphasis added). That forecast, in my opinion opinion - zacchaeus recognized - would leave excessive margins of discretion in the choice of the concessionaire, which is contrast both with the reference to evidence procedures public for the award of concessions, both with the principles of transparency, fairness and non-discrimination between operators, and, finally, with the need (underlined by the decree establishment of the Authority), that conditions are guaranteed fair and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure of the maritime property'.

"Secondly - continued the president of ART - I do not welcome the choice to keep in Article 3, in compliance with Presidential Decree no. 328 of 15 February 1952, the principle that the custody procedure is based on the application for part, which is then - almost always - the subject already holder of the State concession interested in the renewal of the itself, especially considering that the Council of State, in Advisory Section (see Opinion No 1505/2016) expressed unfavorably on the matter. I also note the lack of in the government's proposal for a graduated system of sanctions'.

For Zacchaeus, "many of these critical issues could be easily overcome if art is recognized as having the power to define the concession scheme to be included in the notices for the management of state-owned areas and docks. That would allow, with a view to typing and homogenizing processes of entrustment of state-owned areas - he explained - of insert conventional clauses that ensure regulation uniform incentives for the efficient use of infrastructure, on the basis of what has already been envisaged by the Authority in the motorway sector, a sector in which this attribution already has produced positive effects'.

"Furthermore - said the president of ART - I note whereas this bill should take the opportunity to approve measures that guarantee, especially at the level sanctioning, the full operation of Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2017 establishing a regulatory framework for the provision of services ports and common rules on the financial transparency of harbours. There is, in fact, a profile with respect to which the This Regulation requires action by the Member States to the identification of an independent body for the management of complaints in the maritime field. Italy has opted for a separation of the competences between two distinct bodies, having identified ART as the authority entitled to handle all complaints with the exception of those relating to technical-nautical services (trailer, pilotage and mooring) which are, instead, managed by an internal articulation of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Sustainable Mobility (MIMS); a delimitation that arouses perplexity as it involves profiles related to access infrastructures the management of which, in the other areas of the transport, is entrusted to the Authority. In summary - ha specified Zacchaeus - the system that has come to outline prefigures a scenario in which an economic operator, who contests a tariff approved by the MIMS, should propose its complaint to the same MIMS: all this could be overcome with a legislative intervention that attributes to the Authority, subject endowed with independence and in a position of neutrality, the general competences on the management of complaints deriving from the application of the European Regulation'.

Commenting on the content of the President's hearing of the Transport Regulatory Authority relating to port concessions, and recalling that he has "always been among the few supporters that ART should also perform a function on port concessions', the President of Federlogistica-Conftrasporto. Luigi Merlo, complained that "Unfortunately, the hearing of President Zacchaeus appears to be a missed opportunity and - he clarified - instead of helping to make a step forward risks fueling the singular as much as incomprehensible contrast between ART and the competent Ministry. All based on a comparison between motorway concessions and the port ones that literally does not stand for more than a reason and does not take into account the role played by the Authorities of Port System".

"The Italian ports - underlined the president of Federlogistica-Conftrasporto - they need everything but useless contrasts and quarrels between public realities, such as the Transport Regulation Authority and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Sustainable Mobility. The market requires clear rules from the country on the issue of port concessions or the definition of certainties, which are based on a verification of the business plans and not on instrumental equivalences with other types of concessions such as motorway concessions that have characteristics profoundly different from those of the ports".

According to Merlo, the central theme today is not renewal of concessions, but the method: "the theme, and we said it several times - he specified - it is that of a regulation that sets uniform rules of the game and that realizes in the relations between State and private investors a relationship of regulatory certainty uniforms; a necessity indirectly demonstrated by the ongoing discussion on the concessions of the bathing establishments'.

"What would be needed today - concluded the president of Federlogistica-Conftrasporto - is a regulation developed jointly by the Ministry and ART to homogenize the system in place in order to avoid market distortions, setting clear sanctions for those who do not respect the commitments in the plans of business and providing certainty to those who have made investments Important. Disputes between public realities also risk undermine the foundations for the implementation of the PNRR'.