Clarifications regarding Directive 2006/123/EC and the seaside business sector

23.4.2018

Question for written answer E-002235-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Andrea Cozzolino (S&D) , Damiano Zoffoli (S&D) , Renata Briano (S&D) , Elena Gentile (S&D) , Mercedes Bresso (S&D) , Daniele Viotti (S&D) , Silvia Costa (S&D) , Michela Giuffrida (S&D) , Brando Benifei (S&D) , Paolo De Castro (S&D) , Isabella De Monte (S&D) , Nicola Caputo (S&D) , Pina Picierno (S&D) , Luigi Morgano (S&D) , Patrizia Toia (S&D)

Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC appears to prohibit the award of ‘open-ended’ concessions and automatic renewal.

The steps taken in relation to Italy since 2009 in the specific matter of beach concessions have led to a ruling by the Court of Justice (Joined Cases C-458/14 and C-67/15).

Without going into the merits of certain questions still to be resolved, the ruling called for the authorities of the Member States to find ways of safeguarding ‘legitimate expectations’ or of determining whether any natural resources to be used could be considered scarce; furthermore, the Court reognised concessions of State-owned property to fall into the category of ‘service concessions’.

However, Frits Bolkestein has challenged this last assertion, since he does not consider beach concessions to be services, but maintains that they are goods and that the directive should therefore not be applied. That view has given rise to new legitimate expectations among the businesses involved, as it contradicts what has previously been said and established and casts doubt on the dialogue now in progress between national and European authorities.

That being the case, does not the Commission think that it should issue an official note in order both to clarify the nature of the former Commissioner’s statements and interpretation and to answer the question whether, if any national legislation were to be adopted in line with that interpretation, the infringement procedure would have to be reopened?