[…] Come spiega l'avvocato Marco Monaco, partner dello studio legale ADVANT Nctm, Napoli non aveva molte alternative, se non restare esclusa dal circuito delle città ospitanti, visto che il Calcio Napoli non ha ad oggi presentato un progetto con allegato studio di fattibilità secondo le norme previste dalla legge Stadi del 2021. “Eppure - prosegue Monaco - questa legge, che facilita la realizzazione di immobili complementari all'infrastruttura sportiva, offre di fatto ai privati un discreto margine di business. Inoltre, l'introduzione della figura del commissario per gli stadi assicurerà procedure amministrative e urbanistiche estremamente semplificate. In pratica, gli stadi sono stati assimilati a opere infrastrutturali di interesse strategico nazionali e come tali possono viaggiuare su una corsia preferenziale”.

Leggi l'articolo integrale sull'edizione dell'8 agosto 2026 de il Foglio

Si evidenzia, da un lato, l’inutilità del dialogo competitivo per la gran parte delle procedure di project financing e comunque la sua praticabilità a diritto vigente; dall’altro, il rischio di incorrere nella violazione delle medesime norme europee rilevata dalla Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea prevedendo un punteggio premiale in gara riservato al promotore. 

Lo scritto mette in luce che l’iniziativa privata è essa stessa un vantaggio per il promotore e che tale vantaggio è però compatibile con il diritto dell’Unione Europea. Sicché si propone una linea di intervento nell’eliminazione dell’obbligo di partecipare alla gara affinché il promotore possa ottenere il pagamento delle spese di progettazione e impostazione da parte dell’aggiudicatario (eventualmente aumentate da un premio per l’ideazione dell’operazione), così da incentivare la creazione di un “mercato delle proposte”, indipendente da quello per le concessioni.

Leggi il contributo integrale del nostro Francesco Follieri sul numero 3/2026 di Urbanistica e Appalti.

Articolo a cura di Marco Monaco per diariodiac.it

La nostra proposta di riforma dell'articolo 193 per garantire semplificazione e trasparenza alla finanza di progetto: senza il fardello della prelazione, liberare la facoltà del privato di ideare e progettare opere.

La Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea ha dichiarato, come noto, con la sentenza 5 febbraio 2026, Causa C810/24, l'incompatibilità del diritto di prelazione riconosciuto al promotore nell'ambito del procedimento di project financing di cui all'art. 183, comma 15, del previgente Codice dei contratti pubblici (d. lgs. n. 50/2016) con il diritto dell'Unione Europea e, in particolare, con la direttiva 2014/23/UE in materia di affidamento dei contratti di concessione.

Leggi l'articolo integrale

Con l'art. 9-ter del D.L. n. 96/2025, convertito con Legge n. 119/2025, il Legislatore ha istituito la figura del Commissario straordinario per tali opere, ridisegnando strutturalmente le norme applicabili alla costruzione e all'ammodernamento delle infrastrutture sportive di interesse strategico nazionale.

In particolare, il Commissario è tenuto a definire uno o più piani di intervento, nonché le attività agli stessi funzionali, sulla base delle iniziative dei soggetti privati promotori e in considerazione delle soluzioni operative definite dal Comitato interistituzionale per la candidatura dell'Italia a ospitare UEFA EURO 2032. I piani devono essere approvati con decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri o dell'Autorità politica delegata in materia di sport, di concerto con il Ministro dell'Economia e delle Finanze e con il Ministro delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. 

Dalle previsioni normative introdotte appare evidente che i progetti degli stadi rientranti nei suddetti piani possano seguire il procedimento speciale disciplinato dall’art. 9-ter, mentre per gli altri impianti sportivi si dovrà continuare a fare riferimento alle disposizioni – comunque semplificatorie - previste dall’art. 4 del D. Lgs. 28 febbraio 2021, n. 38.

Sul versante dei poteri, il Commissario straordinario può provvedere, a mezzo di ordinanza, sentite le amministrazioni competenti (che avranno quindici giorni per esprimersi, applicandosi in caso contrario il meccanismo del silenzio-assenso) in deroga a ogni disposizione di legge diversa da quella penale, fatto salvo il rispetto della normativa antimafia e dei vincoli inderogabili derivanti dall'appartenenza all'Unione Europea. Il Sindaco del Comune interessato può essere nominato Sub-commissario, avvalendosi degli uffici comunali per le proprie funzioni.

Il nucleo dell'intera architettura normativa è rappresentato dal procedimento di rilascio dell’autorizzazione unica. Tale provvedimento autorizzatorio, nel quale confluiscono tutti gli atti di concessione, autorizzazione, assenso, intesa, parere e nulla osta comunque denominati, è rilasciato dal Commissario straordinario in esito a un'apposita conferenza di servizi, convocata in applicazione degli artt. 14-bis e seguenti della L. n. 241/1990, alla quale partecipano tutte le amministrazioni competenti, ivi comprese quelle per la tutela ambientale, paesaggistico-territoriale, dei beni culturali, della salute e della pubblica incolumità. Il rilascio dell'autorizzazione unica sostituisce a ogni effetto tutti i provvedimenti comunque denominati, ha effetto di variante degli strumenti urbanistici vigenti ed equivale a dichiarazione di pubblica utilità, indifferibilità e urgenza delle opere, costituendo altresì titolo per la localizzazione degli interventi e per l'apposizione di vincolo espropriativo.

La finalità della norma è chiara: delineare un procedimento rivolto ad accelerare l'approvazione di progetti relativi a infrastrutture di interesse strategico nazionale, in risposta al crescente gap dell'Italia rispetto a Paesi di ranking sportivo inferiore, non figurando tra le prime dieci nazioni europee per numero di stadi costruiti o ammodernati tra il 2007 e il 2024. Il quadro normativo pone in capo al Commissario una speciale competenza che assorbe tutti i procedimenti amministrativi relativi all'approvazione della progettazione delle infrastrutture, in una logica di semplificazione massima.

I poteri del Commissario straordinario non appaiono, tuttavia, limitati agli stadi già candidati per Euro 2032, potendo estendersi a tutti gli interventi considerati necessari e strettamente funzionali allo svolgimento del torneo, sulla base delle iniziative dei soggetti privati promotori e delle soluzioni operative del Comitato interistituzionale per la candidatura ad EURO 2032. 

Sul versante del sostegno economico, il Legislatore ha previsto l'istituzione del "Fondo italiano per lo Sport", al dichiarato fine di sostenere la promozione, l'aggiudicazione e l'organizzazione di grandi eventi sportivi internazionali e di ottimizzare gli investimenti a favore dell'impiantistica sportiva, affidandone la gestione all'Istituto per il credito sportivo e culturale S.p.A. (ICSC). La misura presenta una struttura particolarmente ampia: il Fondo è destinato non soltanto al rilascio di garanzie su finanziamenti erogati da banche o intermediari finanziari, ma anche alla concessione diretta o indiretta di finanziamenti, alla sottoscrizione di strumenti di capitale di rischio e all'erogazione di contributi a fondo perduto. Il funzionamento del Fondo e le modalità di accesso alle relative risorse sono rimessi a uno o più DPCM, adottati di concerto con il Ministro dell'Economia e delle Finanze, su proposta dell'ICSC. Per espressa previsione legislativa, il Fondo può intervenire anche nell'ambito di operazioni di partenariato pubblico-privato quale forma di sostegno al promotore privato, ai sensi del comma 5 dell'art. 9-ter del D.L. n. 96/2025.

Il Legislatore assume, in conclusione, che il rilancio dell'impiantistica sportiva, e della riqualificazione urbanistica che ne deriva, non possa prescindere da una ferma inversione di rotta nell'ambito del procedimento amministrativo di approvazione dei progetti relativi alle citate infrastrutture, capace di stimolare l'intervento di capitali privati, anche attraverso il sostegno finanziario pubblico.

In questo quadro, assume rilievo anche la dimensione finanziaria del rischio fisico. L’Approfondimento della Banca d’Italia n. 77 (febbraio 2026) stima che il 38% delle imprese non finanziarie italiane sia esposto a rischi idrogeologici, con differenze importanti per territorio e settore, e rileva che la copertura assicurativa riduce mediamente di circa la metà l’impatto dell’esposizione sulla probabilità di insolvenza a un anno. Il rischio meteo-climatico fisico diventa quindi un fattore che incide sul rischio di credito e, in generale, sulla resilienza economica dell’impresa. 

È in questo contesto che si colloca l’obbligo della copertura c.d. “Nat Cat”, introdotto dalla Legge 30 dicembre 2023, n. 213 (Legge di bilancio 2024, art. 1, commi 101 e ss.) attuato mediante il Decreto interministeriale 30 gennaio 2025, n. 18 e ulteriormente disciplinato dal Decreto Legge n. 39/2025 convertito con la Legge n. 78/2025. 

La disciplina impone alle imprese con sede legale in Italia, nonché alle imprese estere con stabile organizzazione in Italia, tenute all’iscrizione nel Registro delle Imprese, di stipulare una polizza assicurativa a copertura dei danni direttamente cagionati da calamità naturali ed eventi catastrofali, che includono sismi, frane, alluvioni, inondazioni e esondazioni come definiti dall’art 3 decreto n.18/2025. 

Sotto il profilo oggettivo, la copertura è riferita, in particolare, alle immobilizzazioni materiali individuate dal rinvio all’art. 2424 c.c., sezione Attivo, voce B-II, numeri 1), 2) e 3), ossia:

• terreni e fabbricati, 

• impianti e macchinari, 

• attrezzature industriali e commerciali. 

L’obbligo di copertura è previsto unicamente per le immobilizzazioni di cui sopra utilizzate a qualsiasi titolo nell’esercizio dell’attività di impresa: quindi l’imprenditore dovrà assicurare sia i beni propri sia i beni di terzi locati che siano strumentali rispetto alla sua impresa. 

Qualora il proprietario dell’immobile utilizzato dall’imprenditore decida di assicurare l’immobile, l’imprenditore potrà evitare di assicurare il bene, ma sarà tenuto a raccogliere prova dell’esistenza della polizza e verificarne la correttezza e l’idoneità rispetto ai requisiti previsti dalla normativa. 

Qualora sia l’imprenditore stesso a stipulare la polizza sul bene in locazione utilizzato per la propria impresa, la legge prevede che l’eventuale indennizzo venga attribuito nella sua totalità al proprietario del bene che sarà tenuto aimpiegare le somme ricevute per il ripristino dei beni danneggiati o periti utilizzati dall’imprenditore. Qualora invece, il proprietario non intenda procedere al ripristino dei beni danneggiati o periti, l’imprenditore avrà diritto ad una somma corrispondente al lucro cessante per il periodo di interruzione dell'attività di impresa a causa dell'evento catastrofale, nel limite del 40 per cento dell'indennizzo ricevuto dal proprietario.

Le tempistiche di entrata in vigore dell’obbligo sono state dilazionate nel tempo per categorie di imprese e sono state oggetto di varie proroghe. Da ultimo, il cosiddetto Milleproroghe 2026 (Decreto Legge 31 dicembre 2025, n. 200, convertito con modificazioni dalla legge 27 febbraio 2026, n. 26, pubblicata in G.U. 28 febbraio 2026, n. 49) ha disposto il differimento al 31 marzo 2026 per alcune categorie di imprese (pesca e acquacoltura e le micro e piccole imprese che esercitano somministrazione di alimenti e bevande o operano come imprese turistico-ricettive). 

Giova ricordare che dell'inadempimento dell’obbligo assicurativo posto a carico delle imprese si dovrà tenere conto ai fini dell’assegnazione di contributi, sovvenzioni e agevolazioni di carattere finanziario a valere su risorse pubbliche, incluse quelle erogate in occasione di eventi calamitosi o catastrofali.

Anche in considerazione del fatto che le misure di prevenzione influenzano il costo del premio assicurativo, nonché dei rischi (di natura anche penale, di responsabilità amministrativa dell’ente ai sensi del D.Lgs. 231/2001, nonché reputazionale) connessi alla compliance in materia ambientale, diventa quindi fondamentale per l’impresa pianificare sia la prevenzione che la risposta alle emergenze, restando sempre aggiornati sulla normativa applicabile.

Una prevenzione efficace richiede, tra l’altro:

• una mappatura realistica degli scenari di rischio (anche fisico);

• procedure interne che definiscano responsabilità e poteri decisionali;

• piani di emergenza aggiornati;

• tracciabilità di controlli, manutenzioni e verifiche periodiche;

• una gestione rigorosa di eventuali sostanze pericolose. 

Sul versante della risposta alle emergenze, è decisivo che l’impresa sia in grado di agire con tempestività e in modo organizzato, ad esempio in relazione alla gestione corretta delle comunicazioni e degli adempimenti verso le autorità competenti quando richiesti dalla normativa di settore o dalle autorizzazioni applicabili.

Nel contesto attuale, la gestione del rischio ambientale è infatti oggi un profilo di governance che può incidere direttamente su costi, continuità operativa e responsabilità. 

ADVANT Nctm compie un ulteriore passo nel proprio percorso di accrescimento delle proprie competenze con la nomina a Partner di Luigi Ardizzone e Francesco Follieri, già Of Counsel e membri del Comitato Scientifico. 

Luigi Ardizzone è Professore Ordinario di Diritto Commerciale presso il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università degli Studi di Brescia. Si occupa prevalentemente di diritto societario e dei mercati finanziari, in ambito sia giudiziale sia di operazioni di M&A.

Francesco Follieri è Professore Ordinario di Diritto Amministrativo presso il Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche della LUM “Giuseppe Degennaro”. Vanta un’ampia esperienza in ambito giudiziale e stragiudiziale, in molteplici settori del diritto amministrativo, tra cui contratti e servizi pubblici, sanità, infrastrutture, urbanistica ed edilizia, società a partecipazione pubblica, energia,ambiente, beni culturali e responsabilità erariale. 

La nomina di Luigi Ardizzone e di Francesco Follieri a Partner si inserisce nella visione di lungo periodo di ADVANT Nctm che vede nell’integrazione tra attività professionale e mondo accademico uno degli elementi distintivi dell’identità dello Studio. 

Un approccio che si esprime sia sul piano tecnico – attraverso il proprio Comitato Scientifico composto da docenti universitari di primo piano dei principali atenei italiani – sia nella continua formazione, interna ed esterna e iniziative mirate come l’assegnazione di borse di studio e premi di laurea a studenti universitari. Un percorso volto a contribuire alla crescita delle nuove generazioni e all’arricchimento continuo del patrimonio di conoscenze dello Studio. 

“La presenza di Luigi Ardizzone e Francesco Follieri nella nostra partnership rappresenta un passaggio importante e coerente con il nostro percorso di crescita e con l’attenzione che dedichiamo, da sempre, al mondo accademico quale punto di riferimento per la promozione di un metodo scientifico e rigoroso nell’esercizio della professione. Consolidare il rapporto tra accademia e professione significa investire nella qualità della consulenza e nel futuro della nostra comunità, promuovendo un paradigma capace di distinguerci in modo significativo sul mercato”, ha commentato Paolo Montironi, Senior Partner di ADVANT Nctm.

“Siamo molto lieti di poter contribuire, anche come Partner, a un progetto che valorizza in modo concreto l’integrazione tra attività accademica e pratica legale. Crediamo che il confronto costante tra ricerca scientifica e attività professionale rappresenti un fattore decisivo di sviluppo di soluzioni innovative e di crescita”, hanno commentato Luigi Ardizzone e Francesco Follieri.

La dotazione finanziaria di Euro 900 milioni è suddivisa in:

• 500 milioni di euro ai privati, di cui 150 milioni destinati alle imprese;

• 400 milioni di euro alle Pubbliche Amministrazioni (“PA”), di cui 20 milioni destinati alle Diagnosi Energetiche[3].

Rispetto al Conto Termico 2.0, il nuovo Conto Termico prevede:

• l'estensione del perimetro delle PA che possono accedere al meccanismo (mediante nuova definizione all’art. 2, lett. c) del Decreto);

• l'ampliamento delle tecnologie incentivabili (Artt. 5 e 8 del Decreto);

• l'ammissibilità agli interventi di efficienza anche ai soggetti privati su edifici appartenenti all'ambito terziario (Artt. 4 e 7 del Decreto);

• il contributo anticipato per la redazione della diagnosi energetica riservato alle PA e agli Enti del Terzo Settore (“ETS”) non economici, pari al 50% della spesa da sostenere (Art. 15);

• la possibilità di accedere al meccanismo tramite le Comunità Energetiche Rinnovabili o i Gruppi di autoconsumatori di cui le PA, ETS o soggetti privati siano membri (Art. 13);

• la possibilità di accedere al meccanismo mediante un soggetto privato nell'ambito di una configurazione di partenariato pubblico-privato, esclusivamente per le PA (Art. 13);

• l'innalzamento della quota incentivata al 100% della spesa, per interventi realizzati su edifici di proprietà dei Comuni con popolazione fino a 15.000 abitanti e da essi utilizzati (Art. 11);

• la maggiorazione dell'incentivo per alcune categorie di interventi di efficienza energetica che utilizzano componenti esclusivamente prodotti nell'UE o che prevedono l'installazione di impianti con moduli fotovoltaici iscritti al “registro delle tecnologie del fotovoltaico”[4] , fermo restando il rispetto delle percentuali massime di incentivazione del 65% o del 100% sopra richiamate.

Tipologie di interventi ammessi

Le tipologie di interventi ammesse ai benefici del Conto Termico 3.0 sono[5]:

1. interventi di piccole dimensioni per l'incremento dell'efficienza energetica (Titolo II, Articolo 5, para. 1, lett. a) -h)), ovvero:

• Isolamento termico di superfici opache delimitanti il volume climatizzato;

• Sostituzione di chiusure trasparenti comprensive di infissi delimitanti il volume climatizzato;

• Installazione di sistemi di schermatura e/o ombreggiamento e/o sistemi di filtrazione solari esterni di chiusure trasparenti con esposizione da ESE a O, fissi o mobili, non trasportabili;

• Trasformazione degli edifici esistenti in “edifici a energia quasi zero”[6];

• Sostituzione di sistemi per l'illuminazione di interni e delle pertinenze esterne esistenti con sistemi di illuminazione efficienti;

• Installazione di tecnologie di gestione e controllo automatico (building automation) degli impianti termici ed elettrici, inclusa l'installazione di sistemi di termoregolazione e contabilizzazione del calore;

• Installazione di elementi infrastrutturali per la ricarica privata di veicoli elettrici, presso l'edificio e le relative pertinenze, realizzato congiuntamente alla sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con impianti di climatizzazione invernale dotati di pompe di calore elettriche;

• Installazione di impianti solari fotovoltaici e relativi sistemi di accumulo, presso l'edificio o nelle relative pertinenze, realizzato congiuntamente alla sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con impianti di impianti di climatizzazione invernale dotati di pompe di calore elettriche;

2. interventi di piccole dimensioni per la produzione di energia termica da fonti rinnovabili e di sistemi ad alta efficienza (Titolo III, Articolo 8, para. 1, lett. a-g)), ovvero:

• Sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con impianti di climatizzazione invernale, anche combinati per la produzione di acqua calda sanitaria, dotati di pompe di calore elettriche o a gas, utilizzanti energia aerotermica, geotermica o idrotermica (con potenza termica utile nominale fino a 2 MW;

• Sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con sistemi ibridi factory made o bivalenti a pompa di calore (con potenza termica nominale fino a 2 MWt);

• Sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti o di riscaldamento delle serre e dei fabbricati rurali esistenti o per la produzione di energia termica per processi produttivi o immissioni in reti di teleriscaldamento e teleraffreddamento con generatori di calore alimentati da biomassa, compresi i sistemi ibridi factory made o bivalenti a pompa di calore (con potenza termica nominale fino a 2 MWt);

• Installazione di impianti solari termici, anche abbinati a sistemi di solar cooling (con superficie solare lorda fino a 2.500 m2);

• Sostituzione di scaldacqua elettrici e a gas con scaldacqua a pompa di calore;

• Sostituzione di impianti di climatizzazione invernale con l'allaccio a sistemi di teleriscaldamento efficienti (con potenza termica utile nominale fino a 2 MW);

• Sostituzione funzionale, totale o parziale, di impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con unità di microcogenerazione alimentate da fonti rinnovabili.

Si nota che gli incentivi sono determinati in funzione delle spese ammissibili previste per la realizzazione dell'intervento, nel rispetto dei massimali specifici per: (i) unità di superficie; (ii) unità di potenza; (iii) producibilità degli impianti (i.e., “dimensione fisica” dell’immobile oggetto di intervento, superficie dell’immobile o della copertura, pavimento o parete oggetto di intervento o dell’impianto di produzione di calore/energia) con la conseguenza che per massimizzare l’incentivo percepibile (con economia di scala favorevole) è necessario focalizzarsi su interventi di medie/grandi dimensioni che sono numericamente ridotti. 

Cenni sul PPP nel contesto del Conto Termico 3.0

Le PA possono accedere agli incentivi avvalendosi di un soggetto privato che assume la qualità di Soggetto Responsabile[7], con il quale sia stato sottoscritto un contratto di partenariato pubblico-privato (cd. PPP) di cui all’art. 174 e segg. del D.lgs. n. 36 del 2023 (Codice dei Contratti Pubblici), a esclusione del partenariato sociale. Il soggetto privato che agirà in qualità di Soggetto Responsabile deve rispettare i requisiti soggettivi di volta in volta indicati dalla procedura di affidamento indetta dalla PA ai sensi del D.lgs. 36/2023 e, in particolare:

• di non incorrere in alcuna delle cause di esclusione di cui agli articoli 94, 95 e 98 del D.lgs. n. 36/2023; 

• di essere in possesso dei requisiti di capacità economico-finanziaria e tecnico-professionale proporzionati all’oggetto e al valore del contratto, ai sensi degli artt. 100 e ss. del D.lgs. n. 36/2023;

• nel caso in cui il contratto comprenda l’esecuzione di lavori, di essere in possesso dell’attestazione SOA nelle categorie e classifiche pertinenti, laddove richiesta dalla normativa vigente[8].

La determinazione degli incentivi, in termini di intensità e cumulabilità, viene effettuata nei limiti delle spese imputabili alla PA nell’ambito del contratto di PPP, sia nel caso in cui la PA si configuri direttamente come Soggetto Responsabile sia nel caso in cui il soggetto privato si identifichi come Soggetto Responsabile. Sono imputabili alla PA tutte le spese ammissibili ai sensi del Decreto che sono previste dal progetto esecutivo approvato ai sensi del D.lgs. n. 36/2023, anche se rientranti in tutto o in parte nell’investimento del privato, ovvero che sono indicate dal Piano economico finanziario (PEF) asseverato da un ente terzo.

In fase di trasmissione della richiesta di concessione degli incentivi, il Soggetto Responsabile dovrà fornire: 

• il contratto di PPP, debitamente sottoscritto dalle parti e redatto ai sensi dell’art. 174 e ss. D.lgs. 36/23, avente i requisiti minimi previsti dalle regole applicative ovvero:

  • il rapporto contrattuale instaurato tra il soggetto pubblico e il soggetto privato deve essere di lungo periodo e finalizzato al soddisfacimento di un interesse pubblico, tra cui in ogni caso la riqualificazione energetica dell’edificio oggetto dell’intervento; 

  • la copertura dei fabbisogni finanziari necessari deve provenire in misura significativa da risorse del soggetto privato anche in ragione del rischio operativo assunto;

  • la progettazione esecutiva, la realizzazione e la gestione del progetto devono essere affidate al soggetto privato, mentre al soggetto pubblico spetta il compito di definire gli obiettivi e verificarne l’attuazione; 

  • il rischio costruttivo e operativo connesso alla realizzazione e alla gestione del progetto deve ricadere in misura prevalente in capo al soggetto privato;

  • una durata compatibile con il raggiungimento dell’interesse pubblico sotteso all’affidamento e comunque non inferiore al periodo di erogazione dell’incentivo maggiorato di cinque anni, corrispondente al termine di mantenimento dei requisiti e di conservazione della documentazione; 

  • trasferimento del rischio operativo a carico della parte privata, sulla quale grava anche in tutto o in parte l’investimento, fermo il successivo accesso ai meccanismi incentivanti; 

  • attribuzione alla parte privata del compito di realizzare e gestire l’opera/le opere oggetto di affidamento, secondo modalità e prescrizioni impartite dalla parte pubblica, che definisce gli obiettivi e ne verifica l’attuazione;

  • “clausole rescissorie” che, in caso di risoluzione anticipata del contratto per cause imputabili al soggetto privato, garantiscano la restituzione al GSE degli incentivi già erogati ovvero la rinuncia agli incentivi non ancora percepiti; 

  • il contratto deve essere sottoscritto in una data antecedente a quella di presentazione dell'istanza di accesso agli incentivi (nel caso di interventi ad accesso diretto);

  • il contratto deve risultare efficace, al più tardi, alla data di accoglimento dell'istanza di accesso agli incentivi.

• il progetto esecutivo verificato e approvato ai sensi del D.lgs. 36/2023 con l’indicazione delle spese ammissibili ai fini del Conto Termico di cui agli artt. 6 e 9 del Decreto, dell’IVA e delle entrate tra cui l’incentivo Conto Termico e infine dell’utile previsto; 

• il Piano economico-finanziario (PEF) asseverato da ente terzo contenente l'importo complessivo delle spese sostenute per la realizzazione dell’intervento mediante il partenariato pubblico-privato, con l’indicazione delle spese ammissibili ai fini del Conto Termico di cui agli artt. 6 e 9 del Decreto, dell’IVA e delle entrate tra cui l’incentivo Conto Termico e infine dell’utile previsto;

• il piano dei pagamenti previsti dal contratto;

• dichiarazione contenente la suddivisione delle spese ammissibili e non ammissibili, sottoscritta dalla PA e dal Privato, redatta secondo il modello 10. Il valore delle spese ammissibili indicato dovrà essere corrispondente con quello riportato sul Portaltermico;

• in caso di contratti multi-edificio, ripartizione dei costi per singolo edificio oggetto dell’intervento, firmata da entrambe le parti.

Affinché un EPC possa consentire alla ESCO di accedere, per conto del Soggetto Ammesso, al meccanismo di sostegno del Conto Termico 3.0, lo stesso deve rispettare i requisiti minimi previsti dall’Allegato 8 del D.lgs. 102/2014 e deve essere coerente con le disposizioni del Decreto. In particolare, il contratto:

• deve presentare i requisiti di cui all’Allegato 8 del D.lgs. 102/2014;

• deve rispettare le disposizioni della norma UNI CEI EN 17669:2023;

• deve rispettare quanto previsto dall’art. 2, comma 2, lett. n), del D.lgs. n. 102 del 2014 e, pertanto, fondarsi su dei risparmi garantiti di energia e non esclusivamente su effetti economici;

• deve prevedere dei procedimenti chiari e coerenti per la determinazione delle baseline energetiche di riferimento e per l’individuazione dei metodi di normalizzazione dei parametri al contorno;

• deve prevedere un sistema di misura chiaro e coerente con gli algoritmi dei risparmi da determinare e garantire; 

• deve riferirsi ad un unico edificio o all’unità immobiliare su cui sono realizzati gli interventi, a meno dell’eccezione prevista per le PA (per cui è ammesso EPC multi-edificio); 

• deve prevedere una durata del contratto compatibile con quanto previsto dall’art. 13 comma 6, lett. a) del Decreto, (i.e., periodo di incentivazione + cinque anni successivi al periodo di erogazione degli incentivi);

• deve essere redatto in maniera tale che il legame stabilito fra le parti, non sia fittizio, ma si deve concretizzare con un riconoscimento periodico di un canone, per l’intera durata contrattuale, a fronte di una prestazione/funzione da mantenere sino alla fine del contratto;

• deve prevedere un’indicazione chiara e coerente delle spese, delle entrate e dell’utile, in linea con quanto indicato all’art. 13, comma 6, lettera b) del D.M. 7 agosto 2025.

Sebbene il project financing (disciplinato oggi dall’art. 193 del D.lgs. 36/2023), una delle modalità di selezione del partner privato nei PPP di tipo contrattuale, sia stato oggetto di una recente pronuncia della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea che ha sancito l’incompatibilità del diritto di prelazione riconosciuto in garante al promotore, previsto dal previgente D.lgs. n. 50/2016[9] (ma tuttora riprodotto nel vigente D.lgs. n. 36/2023), e sia (anche sotto altri profili) oggetto di esame in una procedura di infrazione avviata dalla Commissione europea l’8 ottobre 2025, la conclusione di contratti EPC con le pubbliche amministrazioni si configura come un’opzione che, pur richiedendo un’attenta pianificazione e una solida strutturazione contrattuale, appare destinata ad assumere un ruolo sempre più centrale nei prossimi anni, in affiancamento ad altri strumenti (quali, ad esempio, il Servizio Energia Plus).

Infatti, l’utilizzo degli EPC per la riqualificazione energetica degli edifici pubblici rappresenta un rilevante volano economico per la filiera delle imprese coinvolte e, considerata l’estensione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico, un altrettanto significativo volano ambientale, in termini di riduzione delle emissioni climalteranti conseguente al risparmio energetico conseguibile, come sottolineato recentemente anche da ENEA.

Occorre infatti considerare che il D.lgs. n. 36/2023 dedica una specifica disposizione ai contratti EPC (art. 200), dettando una disciplina puntuale in ordine a taluni obblighi contrattuali e relative modalità di esecuzione[10].

D’altronde, l’accesso allo strumento del PPP ai fini dell’ammissione al Conto Termico costituisce un ulteriore elemento di attrattività, anche alla luce della predisposizione congiunta, da parte dell’Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione, della Ragioneria Generale dello Stato e di ENEA, di un contratto tipo di rendimento energetico o di prestazione energetica (EPC) per gli edifici pubblici, ai sensi dell’art. 200 del D.lgs. n. 36/2023 e dei relativi allegati (ivi inclusi il capitolato tecnico e la matrice dei rischi).

Tale iniziativa assume particolare rilievo sistematico: da un lato, favorisce l’omogeneità e la standardizzazione delle clausole contrattuali, riducendo le incertezze applicative e i tempi di strutturazione delle operazioni; dall’altro, rafforza la bancabilità dei progetti, grazie a una più chiara allocazione dei rischi tra amministrazione concedente e operatore economico, in coerenza con i principi propri del PPP e fornisce un quadro regolatorio più stabile e prevedibile per gli investitori.

Al fine di rendere coerenti la struttura e la logica del PPP e degli EPC nel contesto del Conto Termico 3.0, costruito su una logica di incentivo riferita al singolo intervento inteso in senso stretto, risulta necessario adottare un paradigma differente. In particolare, occorre valorizzare interventi, intesi in senso lato, di più ampio respiro, che prevedano una pluralità di opere e/o impianti e che siano fondati su un miglioramento complessivo del rendimento energetico del sistema oggetto di intervento. Tale prestazione, se realizzata in conformità alle previsioni contrattuali e a parità di costo del vettore energetico, è idonea a generare un risparmio misurabile e vantaggioso sia per la pubblica amministrazione sia per il partner privato.

In definitiva, l’integrazione tra disciplina dei PPP, schema tipo di EPC e meccanismi incentivanti del Conto Termico appare idonea a promuovere una più ampia diffusione degli interventi di riqualificazione energetica del patrimonio pubblico, con effetti positivi sia sul piano finanziario sia su quello ambientale. 

Termini di pagamento degli incentivi 

In base alle Regole Applicative (Punto 4.3), gli importi dell’incentivo sono erogati entro l’ultimo giorno del mese successivo a quello della fine del bimestre in cui ricade la data di perfezionamento della Scheda-Contratto[11], che coincide con la data della comunicazione da parte del GSE al Soggetto Responsabile del provvedimento di ammissione agli incentivi di cui al Decreto. 

Per importi fino a Euro 15.000, il Decreto prevede l’erogazione dell’incentivo in un’unica rata. Gli importi che superino tale soglia sono erogati in rate annuali costanti per la durata definita nella Tabella 1 di cui all’art. 11, comma 3 del Decreto (i.e., tra 2 e 5 anni)[12].

Ai sensi dell’art. 11, comma 6 del Decreto, in relazione agli interventi realizzati dalla PA e dagli Enti del Terzo Settore (“ETS”), anche per il tramite di ESCO o degli altri soggetti abilitati, è prevista l’erogazione in un’unica rata anche per incentivi di importo superiore a Euro 15.000 quando optino per la procedura di accesso diretto (i.e., alla conclusione dei lavori) e non in caso di prenotazione (i.e., per lavori ancora da avviare o in corso di realizzazione, riservata alle PA e agli ETS).

Per gli interventi realizzati dagli ETS economici, anche per il tramite di ESCO o degli altri soggetti abilitati, l’erogazione in un’unica rata anche per incentivi di importo superiore a Euro 15.000 è possibile esclusivamente per gli interventi del Titolo III[13].

Il GSE, all’accoglimento delle istanze di prenotazione, impegna a favore del Soggetto Responsabile richiedente la somma corrispondente all’incentivo massimo riconoscibile. Tale importo è da intendersi quale massimale a preventivo. L’atto di conferma della prenotazione rilasciato dal GSE rappresenta un impegno all’erogazione delle risorse, fermo restando, in ogni caso, il rispetto delle condizioni di ammissibilità e dei requisiti previsti dal Decreto.

L’importo dell’incentivo prenotato rappresenta un massimale e può essere oggetto di rimodulazione da parte del GSE in esito alle attività istruttorie condotte sulle dichiarazioni e sulla documentazione presentata dal Soggetto Responsabile ai fini dell’erogazione dell’incentivo.

In caso di accesso agli incentivi mediante prenotazione, anche per il tramite di ESCO o di altro soggetto abilitato di cui all’art. 13 del Decreto, laddove richiesta, l‘erogazione dell’incentivo potrà avvenire mediante:

• una rata di acconto[14], richiesta dal Soggetto Responsabile con la comunicazione dell‘avvio dei lavori;

• un'eventuale rata intermedia[15], che potrà essere richiesta al raggiungimento del 50% dell’importo delle spese ammissibili previste per la realizzazione dell’intervento oggetto della prenotazione;

• una rata di saldo, richiesta dal Soggetto Responsabile alla conclusione dell’intervento, a seguito dell’invio dell’istanza di accesso diretto a rendicontazione (cd. post prenotazione).

L’erogazione delle suddette rate è effettuata entro l’ultimo giorno del mese successivo a quello della fine del bimestre in cui ricade la data di attivazione del contratto, da intendersi come la data di invio del provvedimento di ammissione agli incentivi.

Ove espressamente previsto in alcune delle fattispecie contrattuali di cui all’art. 14, comma 2, lettera b) num. i., iii., iv.), ovvero: (i) presenza di una diagnosi energetica e di un provvedimento o altro atto amministrativo attestante l'impegno all'esecuzione di almeno uno degli interventi ivi ricompresi; (ii) presenza di un contratto di prestazione energetica o di un altro contratto di fornitura integrato per la riqualificazione energetica dei sistemi interessati; (iii) presenza di un provvedimento o altro atto amministrativo attestante l'avvenuta assegnazione dei lavori oggetto della scheda-domanda, unitamente al verbale di consegna dei lavori redatto dal direttore dei lavori, la PA o l’ETS può chiedere che le somme prenotate in proprio favore siano erogate, anche parzialmente, dal GSE alla ESCO firmataria del contratto, sotto propria responsabilità circa la corretta esecuzione dei lavori e la quantificazione richiesta (previa formale obbligazione solidale tra le parti).

Si segnala che (i) un soggetto privato selezionato dalla PA nell’ambito di forme di partenariato pubblico-privato che presenta richiesta di contributo in Conto Termico - qualificandosi come Soggetto Responsabile - per conto di una PA, così come (ii) una ESCO che presenta richiesta di contributo in Conto Termico - qualificandosi come Soggetto Responsabile per conto di un altro soggetto, tramite la stipula di un contratto EPC o di Servizio Energia, non può usufruire del mandato irrevocabile all'incasso (Punto 12.12.3.2. delle Regole Applicative). 

Si precisa, infatti, che il mandato irrevocabile all'incasso è uno strumento con il quale si va ad effettuare il pagamento di un bene, alla stregua di una ricevuta di bonifico. Nei casi in cui la ESCO si configura come Soggetto Responsabile, infatti, non devono essere trasmessi al GSE le fatture e le relative ricevute di bonifico, e conseguentemente non può essere adottato lo strumento del mandato irrevocabile all'incasso (Punto 12.12.4 delle Regole Applicative).

L’incentivo verrà pertanto pagato alla PA che lo condividerà – se e nella misura pattuita – con la ESCo ma rendendo nei fatti meno appetibile per enti finanziatori una tale tipologia di struttura finanziaria.

È invece ammissibile la cessione del credito, esclusivamente per le istanze inviate in modalità di accesso diretto e con pagamento rateizzato dell’incentivo e deve avere ad oggetto la totalità dei crediti, presenti e futuri, vantati dal cedente nei confronti del GSE per effetto della Convenzione in essere tra le parti, fino alla scadenza della stessa o alla eventuale retrocessione (Punto 12.3.3. delle Regole Applicative). Inoltre:

• i crediti devono essere ceduti a un unico cessionario;

• la richiesta di ammissione all’incentivo deve essere effettuata esclusivamente nella modalità di Accesso Diretto;

• l’erogazione dei crediti dovrà essere rateizzata;

• è necessario che l’atto di cessione dei crediti sia:

  • redatto sulla base modello standard del GSE in forma di atto pubblico o scrittura privata autenticata dal notaio e stipulato in data successiva al provvedimento di accoglimento emesso dal GSE;

  • completo della Convenzione quale parte integrante dell’atto di cessione dei crediti;

  • espressamente accettato dal GSE a seguito di notifica, mediante invio di raccomandata A/R o PEC, al mandante e al mandatario;

La cessione del credito ha validità fino all'accettazione, da parte del GSE, dell'eventuale atto di retrocessione del credito. La retrocessione dell'intero credito residuo al cedente originario deve avvenire nella stessa forma, rispettando le medesime condizioni sopra riportate, con la quale è stato stipulato l'atto di cessione dei crediti a cui si riferisce.

Il GSE provvederà a pagare i crediti residui al titolare originario del credito a decorrere dal secondo mese successivo all'accettazione della retrocessione. Il GSE non è Responsabile nel caso di mancata, errata e/o ritardata ricezione dell'atto.

L'accettazione, sia della cessione, sia della retrocessione dei crediti, non pregiudica la facoltà del GSE di opporre al cessionario la compensazione che avrebbe potuto opporre al cedente.

[1] Di cui al Decreto del Ministero dell'ambiente e della sicurezza energetica del 7 agosto 2025 (“D.M. 7 agosto 2025” o “Decreto”) in vigore dal giorno 25 dicembre 2025 (i.e., 90 giorni dalla pubblicazione in GU). In data 5 dicembre 2025 il GSE ha pubblicato le relative regole applicative (le “Regole Applicative”).

[2] In quanto presentano caratteristiche tecniche, economiche e procedurali tali da giustificare un regime autorizzativo e incentivante semplificato, alternativo rispetto agli strumenti strutturali (per infrastrutture energetiche di rete grandi impianti di produzione centralizzata programmi industriali complessi) o agli incentivi complessi.

[3] Diagnosi e redazione dell'attestato di prestazione energetica sono incentivate nella misura del 100% della spesa sostenuta dall'amministrazione pubblica o dalla ESCO che esegue l'intervento per suo conto, ad esclusione delle cooperative di abitanti e delle cooperative sociali.

[4] Di cui all’articolo 12 del decreto-legge 9 dicembre 2023, n. 181, ed in particolare del 5% per impianti con moduli fotovoltaici prodotti negli Stati membri dell'Unione europea (“MS”) con un'efficienza a livello di modulo almeno pari al 21,5% (lett. a); del 10% per impianti con moduli fotovoltaici con celle, gli uni e le altre prodotti nei MS, con un'efficienza a livello di cella almeno pari al 23,5% (lett. b); del 15%  per impianti con moduli fotovoltaici prodotti nei MS, composti da celle bifacciali ad eterogiunzione di silicio o tandem prodotte nell'UE con un'efficienza di cella almeno pari al 24,0% (lett. c).

[5] Si precisa che gli interventi di cui al punto 1 e 2 devono essere realizzati necessariamente in edifici esistenti, parti di essi o unità immobiliari esistenti.

[6] L’edificio a energia quasi zero (nZEB) è definito come un “edificio ad altissima prestazione energetica in cui il fabbisogno energetico molto basso o quasi nullo è coperto in misura significativa da energia da fonti rinnovabili, prodotta in situ” dalla direttiva EPBD (2010/31/EU).

[7] Ai sensi dell’art. 2, comma 1, lettera tt) del Decreto, il Soggetto Responsabile (SR) è il “soggetto che ha sostenuto le spese per l’esecuzione degli interventi di cui al presente decreto e che ha diritto all’incentivo e stipula il contratto con il GSE. Per la compilazione della scheda-domanda e per la gestione dei rapporti contrattuali con il GSE, può operare attraverso un soggetto delegato”.

[8] Ai fini dell’accesso agli incentivi di cui al Decreto, nel caso in cui il contratto di PPP preveda anche la gestione di risparmi energetici sull’edificio oggetto dell’intervento il soggetto deve essere in possesso della certificazione UNI CEI 11352, rilasciata da organismo accreditato, in corso di validità alla data di presentazione dell’istanza al GSE. La certificazione deve essere mantenuta per l’intero periodo di incentivazione e per i cinque anni successivi all’erogazione da parte del GSE dell’incentivo o dell’eventuale ultima rata dell’ottenimento dell’incentivo riconosciuto. Nel caso di raggruppamento temporaneo di imprese, consorzio o società di scopo ai sensi dell’art. 194 del D.lgs. n. 36/2023, vale quanto già precisato per la ESCO rispetto all’impresa che deve risultare in possesso della certificazione UNI CEI 13352.

[9] Con sentenza del 5 febbraio 2026, la Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea ha dichiarato, nella Causa C-810/24, l'incompatibilità del diritto di prelazione riconosciuto al promotore nell'ambito del procedimento di project financing di cui all'art. 183, comma 15, del previgente Codice dei contratti pubblici (d.lgs. n. 50/2016) con il diritto dell'Unione Europea e, in particolare, con la direttiva 2014/23/UE in materia di affidamento dei contratti di concessione. Invero il censurato diritto di prelazione attribuiva al promotore non aggiudicatario della procedura di gara indetta dall’amministrazione concedente la facoltà di adeguare la propria offerta a quella dell’aggiudicatario ovvero, in caso di mancato esercizio della prelazione, di ottenere il rimborso delle spese sostenute per la predisposizione della proposta.

[10] In particolare, l’art. 200 del D.lgs. n. 36/2023 prevede che nei contratti di rendimento energetico o di prestazione energetica (i) i ricavi di gestione dell'operatore economico sono determinati e pagati in funzione del livello di miglioramento dell'efficienza energetica o di altri criteri di prestazione energetica stabiliti contrattualmente, purché quantificabili in relazione ai consumi; (ii) la misura di miglioramento dell'efficienza energetica, calcolata secondo le norme in materia di attestazione della prestazione energetica degli immobili e delle altre infrastrutture energivore, è resa disponibile all'ente concedente a cura dell'operatore economico; (iii) la misura di cui al precedente punto deve essere verificata e monitorata durante l'intera durata del contratto, anche avvalendosi di apposite piattaforme informatiche adibite per la raccolta, l'organizzazione, la gestione, l'elaborazione, la valutazione e il monitoraggio dei consumi energetici.

[11] Documento contrattuale da stipularsi tra Soggetto Attuatore e GSE e contenente le clausole contrattuali che regolano il rapporto tra le parti nel periodo di incentivazione relativo agli interventi oggetto della richiesta di concessione degli incentivi di cui al Decreto.

[12] In caso di multi-intervento, il numero delle rate è individuato quale valore massimo tra i valori delle rate dei singoli interventi di cui alla suddetta Tabella 1, distribuendo equamente tra esse la somma dell’incentivo totale spettante.

[13] Per tali soggetti, laddove vengano realizzati multi-intervento con combinazione di interventi del Titolo II (su edifici ricadenti nell’ambito terziario) e del Titolo III, l’erogazione di incentivi di importo superiore a Euro 15.000 è effettuata con multi-rata e uniformata alla durata massima prevista dagli interventi del Titolo II.

[14] L’importo della rata in acconto è pari al 50% del beneficio complessivamente riconosciuto, se la durata dell’incentivo è di 2 anni, è pari ai due quinti del beneficio complessivamente riconosciuto, se la durata dell’incentivo è di 5 anni, in riferimento alle annualità indicate nella tabella 12.

[15] L’importo dell’eventuale rata intermedia è quantificato in funzione dell’incentivo massimale prenotato, con decurtazione dell’acconto erogato e distribuendo uniformemente la restante quota spettante, in misura pari al 50%, tra la rata intermedia e il saldo da consuntivare alla fine dei lavori.

Tale diritto – che ha avuto i suoi primordi sin dalla legge n. 109/1994, ma privo di corrispettivo nelle fonti dell’Unione Europea – attribuisce al promotore non aggiudicatario della procedura di gara indetta dall’amministrazione concedente la facoltà di adeguare la propria offerta a quella dell’aggiudicatario ovvero, in caso di mancato esercizio della prelazione, di ottenere il rimborso delle spese sostenute per la predisposizione della proposta. 

Condividendo i rilievi formulati dal Consiglio di Stato (che aveva sollevato la questione), la Corte di Giustizia ha affermato che il meccanismo di prelazione viola il principio di parità di trattamento nelle procedure di affidamento dei contratti di concessione. La Corte ha evidenziato, in particolare, che tale meccanismo è idoneo a sovvertire l’esito della gara e che, in caso di esercizio della prelazione, l’offerta del promotore non aggiudicatario subisce una modifica sostanziale in un momento successivo all’aggiudicazione, modifica espressamente vietata dalla normativa europea (e su cui la Corte di Giustizia si è già più volte pronunciata: cfr. sentenze 13 giugno 2024, BibMedia, C‑737/22, EU:C:2024:495; 25 aprile 1996, Commissione/Belgio, C‑87/94, EU:C:1996:161). 

La Corte ha ritenuto anche che il diritto di prelazione sia incompatibile anche con la libertà di stabilimento di cui all’art. 49 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea, in quanto il vantaggio assicurato al promotore è idoneo a disincentivare la partecipazione degli operatori economici di altri Stati membri alle procedure di project financing, producendo un effetto anticoncorrenziale. La Corte ha infine escluso che tale disciplina possa trovare fondamento alla luce dei principi di efficienza ed economicità dell’azione amministrativa e di sussidiarietà, obiettivi tipici dei procedimenti di finanza di progetto, nei quali il soggetto privato si fa carico dei costi di realizzazione di lavori e servizi di interesse pubblico, oltre che della progettazione a monte della gara. Tali principi, infatti, non rientrano tra le ipotesi tassative di deroga previste dal diritto dell’Unione Europea alla libertà di stabilimento.

La Corte di Giustizia si è pronunciata solo sull’incompatibilità della precedente disciplina del project financing. Nel frattempo, il legislatore italiano ha tentato di correre ai ripari modificando l’attuale art. 193 del d.lgs. n. 36/2023, introducendo una sorta di mini-procedura ad evidenza pubblica per la selezione del promotore. Tuttavia, da un lato, gli argomenti spesi dalla Corte di Giustizia potrebbero trovare applicazione anche nel caso in cui il promotore venga scelto a valle di quella procedura concorrenziale. La Corte fonda la sentenza del 5 febbraio 2026 sulla “destrutturazione” della gara che il diritto di prelazione comporta. E tale elemento è indipendente da come venga scelto il titolare del diritto di prelazione. Dall’altro lato, la Commissione europea ha avviato una procedura di infrazione nei confronti dell’Italia, contestando anche che le forme della procedura di scelta del promotore non rispettano i requisiti minimi di trasparenza e imparzialità richiesti dalla disciplina europea (l’avvio della procedura di infrazione, riguardante una serie di norme contenute nel vigente Codice dei contratti pubblici, è disponibile qui).

La questione, dunque, si pone anche con riferimento alla vigente versione dell’art. 193 d.lgs. n. 36/2023. In ogni caso è opportuna una riflessione generale sugli effetti che la sentenza potrebbe avere nei confronti del ricorso alla finanza di progetto, su iniziativa del privato. Se, come crediamo, la sentenza in commento segnerà la fine del diritto di prelazione, non è scontato che l’istituto della finanza di progetto seguirà la stessa sorte. È giunto il momento di considerare che l’elemento essenziale di tale procedura consiste nella facoltà concessa al privato di progettare, o, nella maggior parte dei casi, addirittura ideare, un’opera pubblica o un servizio. La libertà di iniziativa dei soggetti privati trova un fondamento nell’art. 41 Cost., con un potere d’impulso che costituisce una sorta di unicum nel contesto normativo attuale dei contratti pubblici. In passato tale prerogativa consentiva ai proponenti di avere un vantaggio rispetto agli altri operatori di mercato, dal momento che l’ente pubblico poteva esaminare la proposta, dichiararla di pubblico interesse o fattibile, e procedere a bandire la gara, senza mai sollecitare altri potenziali interessati. Le disposizioni introdotte con il c.d. Decreto Correttivo, invece, garantiscono, sin da subito, la possibilità di avviare una comparazione tra più proposte, rendendo la procedura più trasparente. È evidente che per il privato aumentano notevolmente i rischi relativi ad un eventuale fallimento dell’iniziativa, accompagnati dai costi rilevanti della fase preliminare, alleggeriti, nondimeno, con la previsione normativa che consente la presentazione di un progetto semplificato. 

Tuttavia, non può essere taciuto che l’eventuale procedura ad evidenza pubblica, bandita ponendo a base di gara il progetto elaborato dal promotore, unitamente agli altri elaborati della proposta, inclusa una sintesi del piano economico-finanziario, si svolgerebbe in un contesto dove sarebbe presente una sorta di “prelazione sostanziale” del citato operatore, dettata dal beneficio competitivo assicurato dalla perfetta conoscenza dei suddetti atti (e degli eventuali margini di miglioramento dei medesimi). Tale posizione di vantaggio è confermata anche dall’obbligo di aggiudicare la procedura di finanza di progetto attraverso il criterio di aggiudicazione dell'offerta economicamente più vantaggiosa individuata sulla base del miglior rapporto tra qualità e prezzo. 

Inoltre, merita di essere osservato che la Corte di Giustizia, nella sentenza in commento, non ha messo in discussione il diritto del promotore non aggiudicatario al rimborso delle spese sostenute per la predisposizione della proposta – nel limite massimo del 2,5% del valore dell’investimento, secondo il dettato normativo dell’art. 193 del vigente Codice dei contratti pubblici – a carico dell’aggiudicatario della procedura di gara.

È chiaro che tali aspetti saranno apprezzati particolarmente da realtà imprenditoriali maggiormente strutturate, disposte a rischiare e in possesso di adeguate risorse economiche.

In conclusione, da un lato, la fine del diritto di prelazione potrebbe costituire una sorta di barriera in grado di rendere la finanza di progetto meno praticabile rispetto al passato, dall’altro, potrebbe rappresentare un nuovo inizio per il project financing, con un’evoluzione dell’istituto, destinato ad essere utilizzato per operazioni assistite da quei presupposti giuridici, economici e tecnici, la cui mancanza, spesso, in passato, ha visto fallire centinaia di iniziative, con enorme spreco di risorse pubbliche e private. 

Marco Monaco interverrà all’evento “Fiducia e Responsabilità”, organizzato dal TAR Lombardia.
L’incontro sarà dedicato all’analisi del ruolo centrale della fiducia e della responsabilità nella Pubblica Amministrazione e nel mercato.

Nel corso dell’evento sarà inoltre presentato il volume "Codice dei contratti pubblici" di Claudio Contessa e Paolo Del Vecchio.

Clicca qui per ulteriori informazioni

Clicca qui per l'approfondimento

Questa disposizione, ad una prima lettura, sembra vietare il ribasso dei costi della manodopera (qualora inferiori a quelli indicati dalla stazione appaltante). Essa deve, tuttavia, essere letta insieme alla previsione, sempre al comma 14 dell’art. 41, per cui “resta ferma la possibilità per l’operatore economico di dimostrare che il ribasso complessivo dell’importo deriva da una più efficiente organizzazione aziendale” e all’art. 108, co. 9, del Codice dei Contratti Pubblici, in base al quale ciascun concorrente deve indicare il proprio costo della manodopera nell’offerta economica, a pena di esclusione. E queste altre disposizioni lasciano quantomeno intendere che il ribasso possa derivare da un costo della manodopera inferiore a quello definito dalla stazione appaltante, da dichiarare nell’offerta. Ciò, però, non implica di per sé che il ribasso possa essere applicato anche alla parte del prezzo corrispondente al costo della manodopera. 

L’ANAC, il Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti e la giurisprudenza amministrativa hanno tentato di dipanare i dubbi sollevati da questa disciplina. Da queste interpretazioni sono derivate due possibili modalità di ribasso del prezzo dipendente da costi della manodopera più bassi di quelli stabiliti dalla stazione appaltante.

In primo luogo, si può applicare il ribasso percentuale solo alle voci di prezzo diverse dalla manodopera, di modo che sommando le voci ribassate al costo della manodopera (fisso), stabilito dalla stazione appaltante, risulterà il prezzo che l’operatore vuole offrire. Questo metodo viene denominato “ribasso indiretto”, perché l’operatore economico può offrire un costo della manodopera inferiore (beneficiando della sua legittima efficienza sotto quel profilo), ma solo indirettamente, per effetto di un ribasso maggiore delle altre voci di costo.

La giurisprudenza che giunge a questa conclusione sostiene che i costi della manodopera vanno espunti dal calcolo del ribasso in virtù di una interpretazione letterale dell’art. 41, co. 14 del Codice dei Contratti Pubblici. Si afferma che: “tale previsione normativa vieta […] che i costi della manodopera, pur rientrando nel più generale importo posto a base di asta, siano inclusi nel cd. importo assoggettato al ribasso ovvero nell’importo sul quale dovrà essere applicato il ribasso percentuale offerto dal concorrente e ciò all’evidente fine di non sottostimare le retribuzioni da erogare ai lavoratori applicati nell’esecuzione delle commesse pubbliche” (TAR Calabria, Reggio Calabria, 8 febbraio 2024 n. 119). Tuttavia, “qualora l’operatore economico disponga di un’organizzazione aziendale particolarmente efficiente, che gli consenta di abbattere i costi della manodopera, questi ultimi possono essere diminuiti in via indiretta e riflessa, ossia offrendo un più elevato ribasso sull’importo dei lavori o dei servizi oggetto della commessa. Detto altrimenti, la formulazione del ribasso è consentita esclusivamente sul valore dell’appalto al netto della manodopera stimata dalla stazione appaltante (e al netto degli oneri di sicurezza), ma il concorrente ha la facoltà di ridurre indirettamente i costi del lavoro aumentando la percentuale di sconto praticata sulla componente direttamente ribassabile. Naturalmente, i minori costi della manodopera che l’operatore ritiene di sopportare in concreto vanno specificati nell’offerta economica, ai sensi dell’art. 108, comma 9, del d.lgs. n. 36/2023, nonché giustificati mediante la dimostrazione della propria efficienza aziendale” (TAR Liguria, Genova, Sez. I, 14 ottobre 2024 n. 673; cfr. TAR Sicilia, Catania, Sez. I, 27 febbraio 2025 n. 738; TAR Lombardia, Milano, Sez. I, 31 ottobre 2024 n. 3000).

A questa tesi si contrappone quella per cui il costo della manodopera può essere oggetto di “ribasso diretto”: visto che i costi di manodopera vanno dichiarati separatamente (sulla base dell’organizzazione e struttura dei costi del personale di ciascun operatore economico), il ribasso deve essere applicato anche al costo della manodopera.

Questa tesi ha da subito trovato accoglimento nel parere n. 2154 del 19 luglio 2023 del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti e nella delibera n. 528 del 15 novembre 2023 (con il Bando tipo n. 1/2023 e la relativa nota illustrativa) dell’ANAC. L’ANAC ha, poi, più di recente ribadito questa tesi (si vedano a titolo esemplificativo le delibere dell’ANAC n. 174 del 10 aprile 2024, n. 452 del 9 ottobre 2024 e n. 65 del 25 febbraio 2025). L’Autorità ammette che anche i costi della manodopera siano assoggettati al ribasso, poiché “la lettura sistematica e costituzionalmente orientata delle diverse disposizioni del Codice in materia di costi della manodopera, ed in particolare dello stesso art. 41, comma 14, seconda parte, e degli artt. 108, comma 9 e 110, induce a ritenere che il costo della manodopera continui a costituire una componente dell’importo posto a base di gara” (ANAC, delibera n. 528 del 15 novembre 2023). Difatti, ciò che conta è che l’operatore dimostri che la “riduzione complessiva dei relativi importi derivi da una più efficiente organizzazione aziendale” (TAR Puglia, Bari, Sez. II, 15 marzo 2025 n. 353). Sulla base di questa lettura, l’operatore economico non può essere escluso per il solo fatto di aver assoggettato a ribasso anche il costo della manodopera, ma la sua offerta sarà assoggettata alla verifica dell’anomalia, nella quale “l’operatore economico avrà l’onere di dimostrare che il ribasso deriva da una più efficiente organizzazione aziendale, oltre il rispetto dei minimi salariali […]” (Cons. Stato, Sez. V, 19 novembre 2024 n. 9254). Infatti, secondo questa tesi “solo seguendo tale impostazione si spiega anche l’obbligo del concorrente di indicare i propri costi della manodopera, a pena di esclusione dalla gara […], previsione che sarebbe evidentemente superflua se i costi della manodopera non fossero ribassabili, e il successivo art. 110, primo comma, che include i costi della manodopera dichiarati dal concorrente tra gli elementi specifici, in presenza dei quali la stazione appaltante avvia il procedimento di verifica dell’anomalia. […] Emerge, infatti, la volontà di responsabilizzare gli operatori economici, allo scopo di assicurare che questi ultimi, prima di formulare il proprio ribasso complessivo, svolgano una seria valutazione preventiva dei predetti costi” (Cons. Stato, Sez. V, 19 novembre 2024 n. 9254; sempre a sostegno del “ribasso diretto” si vedano tra le tante TAR Toscana, Sez. IV, 29 gennaio 2024 n. 120; TAR Sicilia, Catania, Sez. III, 11 novembre 2024 n. 3739).

2. L’opzione per l’una o per l’altra tesi non ha, in verità, alcun impatto sul calcolo del punteggio economico. È evidente che non lo abbia laddove la formula prescelta dalla stazione appaltante consideri il corrispettivo offerto. Non lo ha, però, nemmeno laddove il punteggio economico venga calcolato sulla base del ribasso percentuale (come accade nelle formule di interpolazione lineare o di interpolazione non lineare di cui alle Linee Guida dell’ANAC n. 2/2016), purché tutte le offerte vengano formulate o almeno considerate allo stesso modo – cioè tutte con ribasso indiretto o tutte con ribasso diretto. Infatti, fermo il totale offerto da ciascun offerente, che il ribasso consista in una percentuale maggiore applicata solo sulle voci di corrispettivo diverse dalla manodopera o in una percentuale inferiore applicata su tutte le voci di corrispettivo non ha impatto sul rapporto tra i ribassi e dunque sul punteggio. 

Ad es., ipotizziamo una gara con un punteggio economico pari a 30 in totale e un prezzo a base di gara di 1.000.000 di euro, di cui 500.000,00 di costo della manodopera (senza oneri della sicurezza non ribassabili per comodità di calcolo).

L’Offerta 1 è pari ad 800.000,00 euro, corrispondente al 40% del ribasso sui corrispettivi diversi dal costo della manodopera e al 20% sul totale del corrispettivo.

L’Offerta 2 è pari ad 850.000,00 euro, corrispondente al 30% del ribasso sui corrispettivi diversi dal costo della manodopera e al 15% sul totale del corrispettivo. 

Se il disciplinare prevede la formula dell’interpolazione lineare, fermo che l’Offerta 1 avrà 30 punti (perché è la migliore offerta economica), l’Offerta 2 avrà in ogni caso 22,5 punti. Infatti, se il punteggio è pari al punteggio massimo moltiplicato per il rapporto tra il ribasso dell’offerta da valutare e il ribasso massimo (cioè Pmax x Ri/Rmax), si ha che:

(a) tenendo conto del ribasso diretto, si ha 30 x 15%/20% = 22,5;

(b) tenendo conto del ribasso indiretto, si ha 30 x 30%/40% = 22,5.

Se il disciplinare prevede la formula dell’interpolazione non lineare, cioè Pmax x (Ri/Rmax)^a, laddove “a” deve essere superiore ad 1, fermo che l’Offerta 1 avrà 30 punti (perché è la migliore offerta economica), l’Offerta 2 avrà in ogni caso sempre lo stesso punteggio. Infatti, immaginando a = 2:

(a) tenendo conto del ribasso diretto, si ha 30 x (15%/20%)² = 16,875;

(b) tenendo conto del ribasso indiretto, si ha 30 x (20%/40%)² = 16,875.

Al variare del valore di a, poi, cambia il punteggio dell’Offerta 2, ma esso rimane invariato sia tenendo conto del ribasso diretto sia del ribasso indiretto. Ad esempio, con a = 1,5:

(a) tenendo conto del ribasso diretto, si ha 30 x (15%/20%)^1,5= 19,485;

(b) tenendo conto del ribasso indiretto, si ha 30 x (20%/40%)^1,5= 19,485.

Fermo restando l’obbligo di rispettare la disciplina della remunerazione del lavoro e di dichiarare il costo della manodopera effettivamente praticato, l’indifferenza dei metodi di ribasso ai fini dell’applicazione del punteggio economico lascia emergere che optare per l’una o l’altra interpretazione è, in realtà, questione di mera convenzione. 

D’altro canto, i metodi di ribasso sono indifferenti anche rispetto alla tutela della remunerazione della manodopera: la verifica del rispetto dei minimi salariali avviene in sede di verifica di congruità del costo della manodopera dichiarato dall’aggiudicatario.

Sicché, trarre conseguenze espulsive dall’applicazione del ribasso diretto è del tutto sproporzionato: al più l’applicazione di un ribasso diretto in luogo di uno indiretto da parte dell’operatore economico può aprire ad una rettifica della percentuale di ribasso (laddove la percentuale di ribasso fosse rilevante), eventualmente per il tramite dei chiarimenti sull’offerta ex art. 101, co. 3, del Codice dei Contratti Pubblici, fermi il totale del prezzo offerto e il costo della manodopera dichiarato). Il dibattito, dunque, potrebbe essere superato in radice, prendendo atto dell’irrilevanza della modalità di formulazione del ribasso.

3. Fino ad un definitivo assestamento della giurisprudenza (o ad un radicale superamento della questione), resta determinante porre attenzione alla singola disciplina di gara, per come prevede la formulazione dell’offerta e il calcolo del punteggio economico, e comunque dichiarare il costo della manodopera effettivo, per tenersi pronti alle giustificazioni della congruità dell’offerta.

In accoglimento dell’eccezione sollevata dalla controinteressata, il TAR ha statuito che in virtù dell’art. 119, comma 1, lett. f) e comma 2, c.p.a., nei giudizi aventi ad oggetto le controversie relative a provvedimenti concernenti le procedure di occupazione e di espropriazione delle aree destinate all’esecuzione di opere pubbliche o di pubblica utilità, tutti i termini processuali ordinari sono dimezzati (salvo, nei giudizi di primo grado, quelli inerenti la notificazione del ricorso e dei motivi aggiunti), ivi compreso il termine di trasposizione in sede giurisdizionale del ricorso straordinario mediante deposito dell’atto di costituzione di cui all’art. 48 c.p.a., che costituisce termine avente natura processuale e dunque da rispettare a pena di inammissibilità (cfr., ex multis, T.A.R. Veneto, Sez. II, 31 maggio 2024 n. 1251).

Ai sensi dell’art. 48, comma 1, c.p.a., qualora la parte nei cui confronti sia stato proposto ricorso straordinario proponga opposizione, il giudizio prosegue innanzi al competente tribunale amministrativo regionale “se il ricorrente, entro il termine perentorio di sessanta giorni dal ricevimento dell’atto di opposizione, deposita nella relativa segreteria l’atto di costituzione in giudizio, dandone avviso mediante notificazione alle altre parti”.

È, quindi, già con l’opposizione al ricorso straordinario che si apre la fase giurisdizionale della vicenda, senza che il deposito dell’atto di costituzione possa essere considerato quale “notificazione del ricorso introduttivo” –al quale non si applicherebbe il termine dimidiato–.

L’atto di costituzione si limita, infatti, a riproporre il ricorso già proposto in sede amministrativa, che non può essere integrato o modificato nei motivi e nelle conclusioni, e non può, dunque, in nessun modo essere equiparato alla proposizione del ricorso, già introdotto, con la conseguenza che, per le materie soggette al rito speciale di cui all’art. 119 cod. proc. amm., il deposito dell’atto di costituzione oltre il termine dimidiato di trenta giorni dall’opposizione rende inammissibile il ricorso giurisdizionale per tardività del suo deposito ai fini della trasposizione (cfr. anche Consiglio di Stato, Sez. VII, 9 febbraio 2023 n. 1443; T.A.R. Emilia-Romagna, Parma, 6 agosto 2024 n. 217).

Nel dettaglio, l’asserita illegittimità costituzionale deriverebbe dal contrasto del predetto termine di dodici mesi per l’annullamento in autotutela con gli articoli 3, comma 1, 9, commi 1 e 2, 97, comma 2 e 117, comma 1, della Costituzione (relativamente agli articoli 1, lett. b. e d. e 5 lett. a. e c. della “Convenzione quadro del Consiglio d’Europa sul valore dell’eredità culturale per la società” del 27 ottobre 2005).

Ad avviso del Collegio, in particolare, la previsione di un termine fisso e inderogabile così come previsto dall’articolo 21-nonies, comma 1, della legge n. 241/1990, impedirebbe alle amministrazioni competenti di valutare adeguatamente gli interessi “sensibili” quali, ad esempio, la tutela del patrimonio storico e artistico. Al contrario, la previsione di un termine “elastico agganciato al canone della ragionevolezza” permetterebbe alla pubblica amministrazione di ponderare adeguatamente gli interessi in gioco, evitando che quelli di primario rilievo costituzionale “si rivelino sempre meccanicamente recessivi, per effetto del mero decorso del tempo, rispetto alla tutela di una situazione giuridica a matrice individuale”.

Del resto, sempre secondo l’interpretazione del Collegio, nell’ambito di diversi istituti amministrativi, il legislatore ha valutato di prevedere una disciplina sui generis e temporalmente dilatata a tutela di interessi di rango primario e superindividuale. Tali istituti, a titolo esemplificativo, sono da ricondursi all’art. 20, comma 4, della legge n. 241/1990, che sancisce che le disposizioni in materia di “silenzio- assenso” non si applicano ai procedimenti riguardanti il patrimonio culturale e paesaggistico; all’art. 19, comma 1, della legge n.  241/1990, che esclude dal campo di applicazione della SCIA i casi in cui sussistano vincoli ambientali, paesaggistici o culturali; agli artt. 14-bis, 14-ter e 14-quinquies della legge n. 241/1990 che stabiliscono (i) termini più lunghi per l’assunzione delle decisioni e per la conclusione dei lavori delle conferenze dei servizi nelle ipotesi in cui siano coinvolte amministrazioni preposte alla tutela ambientale, paesaggistico-territoriale e dei beni culturali; (ii) nonché rimedi specifici avverso la determinazione conclusiva della conferenza dei servizi in favore delle amministrazioni dissenzienti preposte alla tutela dei predetti interessi. 

Sotto un altro profilo, i giudici hanno evidenziato che la previsione di un limite temporale rigido per la possibilità di intervento in autotutela si tradurrebbe, indirettamente, nella “preclusione della spendita di altri profili di capacità speciale autoritativa dell’amministrazione”, con ciò intendendo che si limiterebbe il ri-esercizio del potere amministrativo conseguente all’annullamento del precedente provvedimento.

Si resta, quindi, in attesa di conoscere la decisione della Corte costituzionale che potrebbe mettere in discussione un importante strumento di certezza del diritto e, per l’effetto, provocare rilevanti conseguenze in capo ai privati interessati da un eventuale annullamento in autotutela.

Con ordinanza dell’11 settembre 2024, n. 7518, la Terza Sezione del Consiglio di Stato ha rimesso alla Corte costituzionale la questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 80, comma 4, secondo periodo, del d.lgs. 50/2016, laddove prevede la soglia di gravità per le violazioni tributarie definitivamente accertate, discostandosi da precedenti della Sez. V (che aveva già dichiarato manifestamente infondate analoghe questioni di illegittimità costituzionale).

Infatti, in base all’art. 80, co. 4, d.lgs. n. 50/2016:

• le violazioni tributarie definitivamente accertate sono gravi se superano l’importo di euro 5.000,00, stabilita dall’art. 48-bis d.P.R. n. 602 del 1973;

• le violazioni non definitivamente accertate, invece, sono gravi se sono pari o superiori al 10% del valore del contratto e comunque superiori ad Euro 35.000,00.

Con l’ordinanza in commento, il Consiglio di Stato, esclusa la disapplicazione per contrasto con il principio di proporzionalità che deve informare le deroghe alle cause di esclusione previste dalle Direttive del 2014 in materia di contratti pubblici, ritiene rilevante e non manifestamente infondata la questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 80, co. 4, d.lgs. n. 50/2016, in relazione all’art. 3 della Costituzione.

Invero, ad avviso del Collegio, il sistema di determinazione della soglia di gravità per le irregolarità fiscali definitivamente accertate (a portata automaticamente escludente) “si pone in tensione insanabile con l’art. 3 Cost. quale crogiuolo in cui si fondono secondo un sapiente dosaggio assiologico i principi cardinali di proporzionalità e ragionevolezza”. 

In particolare, secondo il Collegio, la norma è irragionevole e sproporzionata per due ordini di ragioni: 

(a) l’art. 80, co. 4, d.lgs. n. 50 del 2016 richiama la soglia di un meccanismo (quello dell’art. 48 bis del d.P.R. n. 602 del 1973) che comporta la compensazione automatica tra crediti nei confronti delle pubbliche amministrazioni e debito erariale. Con la conseguenza che lo stesso debito, se sorto prima della partecipazione alla gara, comporta automaticamente l’esclusione (indipendentemente dal valore del contratto e dalle dimensioni dell’operatore economico), mentre se sorto in corso di esecuzione comporta solo il congelamento del credito vantato dal contribuente nei confronti della p.a. per la somma corrispondente al debito tributario;

(b) la soglia per le violazioni tributarie definitivamente accertate è ingiustificatamente più bassa di quella prevista per le violazioni tributarie non definitivamente accertate, ove la gravità è commisurata al valore del contratto da aggiudicare e presidiata da una soglia de minimis (Euro 35.000,00).

Il Consiglio di Stato – conscio della discrezionalità del legislatore in materia – quasi suggerisce alla Corte costituzionale una sentenza additiva di principio, con la quale cioè si sancisca che sono “gravi violazioni definitivamente accertate quelle che comportano un omesso pagamento di imposte e tasse superiore all'importo di cui all'articolo 48-bis, commi 1 e 2-bis del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 29 settembre 1973, n. 602”, ossia superiore ad Euro 5.000,00,“e che, in ogni caso, sono correlate al valore dell'appalto”, lasciando perciò al legislatore la determinazione della proporzione rispetto al valore dell’appalto. In altre parole, secondo il Consiglio di Stato, il legislatore non sarebbe tenuto ad estendere alle violazioni definitivamente accertate la soglia di rilevanza del 10% del valore del contratto da aggiudicare. 

La questione portata all’attenzione della Corte costituzionale è estremamente attuale, perché l’art. 94, co. 6, l’art. 95, co. 2, e l’Allegato II.10 del d.lgs. n. 36/2023 (allo stato non oggetto dello schema di decreto correttivo) ripetono la medesima disciplina della gravità delle violazioni tributarie. A ben vedere, poi, il d.lgs. 36/2023 ha in un certo senso ulteriormente sottolineato la disparità di trattamento tra le violazioni tributarie definitivamente accertate e quelle non definitivamente accertate, collocando quelle definitive nell’art. 94, cioè fra le cause di esclusione automatica, e quelle non definitive nell’art. 95, cioè fra le cause di esclusione non automatica. Sicché, malgrado l’ordinanza di rimessione si riferisca solo all’art. 80 dell’abrogato codice dei contratti pubblici e, perciò, l’eventuale dichiarazione di illegittimità costituzionale possa avere effetti solo in relazione a quella norma, non è da escludere che una pronuncia sull’art. 80 del d.lgs. n. 50/2016 possa riverberarsi anche sulla disciplina attualmente vigente. 

Del resto, per le stesse ragioni evidenziate dal Consiglio di Stato è lecito dubitare della legittimità costituzionale anche dell’art. 94, co. 6, d.lgs. n. 36/2023. Sicché non è da escludere che, in attesa della decisione della Corte costituzionale, possa essere sollevata anche questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’attuale disciplina di questa causa di esclusione.

In particolare, Francesco parteciperà con un intervento dal titolo “Le più recenti innovazioni legislative”.

Clicca qui per maggiori informazioni

Mercoledì 23 ottobre 2024
10.45-17.30
Polo Universitario di Imperia dell'Università degli Studi Genova, Via Nizza 8, Imperia

L’iter

La Call for Evidence è suddivisa in due sezioni. Nell’ambito della prima, l’Autorità di Vigilanza formula 19 domande allo scopo di ottenere evidenze su: (i) questioni di convergenza, chiarezza, interpretazione e applicazione pratica di concetti e definizioni di primario rilievo della Direttiva, quali quelli di indici finanziari, strumenti del mercato monetario, liquidità e attività finanziarie liquide, limiti di investimento, titoli trasferibili, criteri di valutazione e gestione del rischio, derivati incorporati, strumenti delta-one, investimenti di fondi in altri fondi; (ii) valutazioni sulla persistente attualità – alla luce delle mutate condizioni di mercato – di alcuni concetti espressi nella Direttiva, quale quello di presunzione di liquidità e negoziabilità; (iii) possibile miglioramento della disciplina con riguardo alle questioni relative alla gestione efficiente del portafoglio. Nell’ambito della seconda sezione, invece, l’ESMA formula sei domande al fine di ottenere riscontri e dati in merito alla modalità e misura in cui i fondi UCITS hanno acquisito esposizioni dirette e indirette in determinate classi di attività che possono determinare problemi interpretativi in merito alla loro ammissibilità e/o rischi per gli investitori al dettaglio.
 

La posizione dell’Esma

L’ESMA, in proposito, si dichiara consapevole dell’esistenza di pareri e interpretazioni divergenti e della limitata disponibilità di dati, ed è quindi interessata a ricevere analisi e considerazioni dai partecipanti al mercato per valutare i possibili benefici connessi all’assunzione da parte dei fondi di esposizioni dirette o indirette in tali classi di attività. In particolare, l’Autorità di Vigilanza domanda agli interessati di: (i) compilare una tabella in cui sono elencate diverse classi di attività “controverse” (tra le quali, ad esempio, prestiti strutturati/a leva, obbligazioni catastrofe, quote di emissione, merci, cripto assets e azioni non quotate), indicando i possibili benefici associati all’assunzione di esposizioni dirette o indirette dei fondi in tali strumenti, fornendo altresì prove a supporto della posizione espressa, tenendo conto delle caratteristiche dei mercati sottostanti; (ii) fornire evidenze di come le esposizioni indirette nelle classi di attività elencate aumenterebbero o ridurrebbero i costi e/o i rischi rispetto agli investimenti diretti; (iii) esprimere parere sull’opportunità di adottare un approccio look-through, con l’obiettivo di ridurre la possibilità per i fondi di assumere un’esposizione indiretta in classi di attività altrimenti non ammissibili; (iv) valutare rischi e benefici per i fondi in relazione all’investimento in titoli emessi da veicoli di cartolarizzazione e all’assunzione di posizioni corte tramite determinati strumenti finanziari, quali i derivati.

Le risposte alla Call for Evidence potranno essere inviate entro il 7 agosto 2024, perché l’ESMA possa fornire il proprio parere tecnico alla Commissione entro il 31 ottobre 2024.

A cura di Jessica Facchini per Investire

L’intervento del nostro Marco Monaco sull’edizione odierna de Il Sole 24 Ore nell’articolo dedicato al tema delle gare di appalto legate ai fondi del Pnrr “ancora centrali per l’attività degli avvocati amministrativisti nel 2024 sia per l’affiancamento agli enti pubblici, sia per quello alle imprese concorrenti”.

"I lavori proseguono, le cose non si risolvono e stravolgono da una settimana all'altra. Si prosegue a ritmi incalzanti, perché i tempi non ci aiutano e vanno rispettati». Lo ha detto il ministro dello Sport e giovani, Andrea Abodi, intervenuto a margine della tavola rotonda "Impianti ed infrastrutture sportive: attori e processi - L'esperienza delle Olimpiadi Milano-Cortina 2026" organizzata da Advant Nctm a Milano.

«Penso che l'eredità olimpica e paralimpica non dipenderà solo dalle opere che si chiuderanno prima - ha aggiunto -. Sono opere che comunque miglioreranno la qualità della vita dei cittadini, mentre quelle che saranno fatte dopo non intaccheranno sullo svolgimento delle Olimpiadi. Stiamo parlando di circa 3,5 miliardi di investimenti, che non sono il costo dei Giochi ma di opere pubbliche e mi riferisco a strade, autostrade e tratti ferroviari», ha concluso.

E se le cose andassero storte? A rispondere è stato il presidente del Coni Giovanni Malagò. «Ci sono sempre dei piani B, che sono pronti e predisposti, nella speranza che non si debba mai entrare in questo ordine di idee - ha detto -. Ma questo succede quasi sempre, in quasi tutte le manifestazioni sportive. Questo è un dato di fatto». Il pensiero va soprattutto all'impianto di Cortina. «Se non si riuscisse a realizzare la pista da bob in tempo? È molto semplice, bisognerà andare in una di quelle che sono funzionanti», ha concluso Malagò.

Tratto da Rai News

Il futuro di San Siro resta caldo non solo a breve e medio termine, con il sindaco Sala che sta provando a trattenere Milan e Inter al Meazza, ma è caldissimo anche a lungo termine. E mentre Webuild prosegue a elaborare lo studio di fattibilità del progetto di restyling ("Con Inter e Milan ci sentiamo e le linee guida dei due club sull'eventuale riqualificazione dello stadio San Siro sono in arrivo, è questione di giorni", ha detto il d.g. di Massimo Ferrari), a prendere la parola sull'impianto milanese è Andrea Abodi.

DECISIONI - "Per come è ora, San Siro non è in grado di ospitare gli Europei del 2032", ha detto il ministro dello Sport e dei Giovani partecipando alla tavola rotonda "Impianti ed infrastrutture sportive: attori e processi" organizzato da Advant Nctm a Milano. "Decisioni non sono ancora state assunte. Di sicuro la città di Milano, così come Roma e Torino, sono ragionevoli certezze ma dal punto di vista della rigenerazione delle infrastrutture bisogna ancora dare delle risposte entro il 2026".

Tratto da La Gazzetta dello Sport

(i) tutte le amministrazioni coinvolte rilasciano le determinazioni di competenza entro il termine perentorio di 30 giorni (in caso di amministrazioni preposte alla tutela ambientale, paesaggistico-territoriale, dei beni culturali, alla tutela della salute o dell’incolumità pubblica, il termine è di 45 giorni, fatti salvi i maggiori termini previsti dalle disposizioni del diritto dell’U.E.). Nel caso in cui il progetto sia sottoposto a valutazione di impatto ambientale di competenza regionale e trova applicazione l’articolo 27-bis del decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 (in materia di provvedimento autorizzatorio unico regionale – P.A.U.R.), alla conferenza di servizi indetta dall’autorità competente partecipa sempre il rappresentante della Struttura di missione ZES;(ii) nei 30 giorni successivi, ha luogo una riunione telematica con tutte le amministrazioni coinvolte nella quale, preso atto delle rispettive posizioni, si procede alla stesura della determinazione motivata conclusiva della conferenza di servizi;(iii) contro la determinazione motivata conclusiva della conferenza di servizi può essere proposta opposizione dalle amministrazioni ai sensi dell’articolo 14-quinquies, della legge n. 241 del 1990. In ogni caso si considera acquisito l’assenso delle amministrazioni che non abbiano partecipato alla riunione ovvero che, pur partecipandovi, non abbiano espresso la propria posizione, ovvero abbiano espresso un dissenso non motivato o riferito a questioni che non costituiscono oggetto della conferenza di servizi;(iv)la determinazione motivata di conclusione della conferenza di servizi sostituisce ogni altra autorizzazione, approvazione e parere comunque denominati e consente la realizzazione di tutte le opere, prestazioni e attività previste nel progetto. Ove necessario, costituisce, variante allo strumento urbanistico e comporta la dichiarazione di pubblica utilità, urgenza ed indifferibilità dell’intervento. La determinazione motivata comprende, recandone l’indicazione esplicita, la valutazione di impatto ambientale e i titoli abilitativi rilasciati per la realizzazione e l’esercizio del progetto.

L’attuazione del PNRR? Nessuna preoccupazione dal Governo, ma le riforme sono una necessità

Per l’attuazione del PNRR centrale l’efficienza della Pubblica Amministrazione: sfida e opportunità

Alla grande sfida da cogliere, come quella indicata da Marco Monaco, si accompagna sempre a una grande opportunità. Quale? “Il percorso di riforme che il PNRR ci obbliga a seguire”, specifica."Il Piano non è soltanto un insieme, molto ambizioso, di misure finanziate da attuare ma è soprattutto un esempio di misure, di riforme, che dovrebbero servire per dare efficienza al nostro sistema. Alcune riforme erano richieste da tempo dall’Europa e con il piano l’Europa ha trovato simbolicamente il modo per obbligarci a porre in essere queste riforme.”Tecnicamente, spiega l’avvocato Monaco, si parla di un vincolo esterno introdotto dall’Europa nei nostri riguardi, così come accaduto nel 1996 per l’accesso nell’Unione Monetaria Europea. Ma con una differenza sostanziale: i fondi a disposizione.“È vero che dobbiamo fare le riforma ma l’Europa ci ha dato una mole enorme di risorse, quasi 235 miliardi tra finanziamenti come sovvenzioni e prestiti"

Nell’ondata di riforma legata al PNRR anche la revisione del sistema fiscale è centrale

Nuova legge-stadi: per il presidente della Lega B la finalità del legislatore non si limita al rilancio dell’urbanistica sportiva ma mira pure alla riqualificazione di interi quartieri, magari senza coinvolgere la finanza pubblica.

1. The “Ukraine Decree”

Legislative Decree No. 21/2022, “Urgent measures to counter the economic and humanitarian effects of the Ukrainian crisis” (the "Ukraine Decree") converted into Law No. 51 of 20 May 2022, strengthened State control over investments in Italy, enacting significant changes to Legislative Decree No. 21/2012 (the “Italian FDI Law” or “Golden Power Law”).As it is known, the Golden Power Law grants the Italian Government special powers in relation to certain investments and other corporate transactions, provided such investments or transactions concern strategic assets or activities.In a nutshell, Law No 51/2022:

• expanded, beyond the emergency phase, the strategic areas: therefore, certain sectors (health, pharmaceutical, agri-food, banking and finance) will remain permanently “strategic”, after December 31, 2022.
• confirmed the notification obligations for non-EU residents also for  minority acquisitions (above 10%)  and, in certain domains (communications, transport, energy, health, agri-food and finance, including banking and insurance) the filing obligation has been extended to persons acquiring control resident or established in the EU, including in Italy;
• provided for a mandatory filing in case of mere incorporation of companies active in strategic sectors or holding strategic assets, whereby the incorporation entails the participation, above a certain threshold, in the shareholding structure of foreign investors (except for the defense and security sector, where a notification is required irrespective of the nationality of the shareholders);
• Introduced an obligation upon companies that intend to acquire goods or services related to the design, manufacturing, maintenance and management of activities relating to broadband electronic communication services based on 5G technology (as well as components with high technological intensity functional to the implementation or management of the aforementioned technology) to submit a detailed annual plan to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.  The latter will have 30 days to either approve, impose prescriptions or conditions, or veto the purchasing plan.
• Introduced the pre-notification phase, the content of which was however referred to an implementing decree (see below)

2. The implementing regulation: focus on the pre-filing and on other procedural novelties  

(i) the pre-filing should cover the projects of transactions, deeds, etc. which may fall within the scope of application of the FDI law and shall contain all documents and information required for the formal notification (to the extent available at the timing of the pre-filing)

(ii) the pre-filing must be submitted in any case without breaching the mandatory terms for the formal filing (“without prejudice to the obligation to comply with the terms for the notification”)

(iii) the Italian Government has 30 days to render its decision which can result into the following:

(a) the transaction does not fall within the scope of Italian FDI Law and therefore no formal notification is needed;

(b) the transaction may fall within the scope of Italian FDI Law and should therefore be notified;

(c) the transaction fall within the scope of the FDI Law, but it is manifestly clear that there is no need to exercise the special powers.

• in case of acquisitions, Law 51/2022 provided for a joint-filing by both the investor and the target entity, where possible. In the absence of a joint filing, the target company has to be in any case notified in advance by the buyer of the filing ant its content;
• Specific rules on sanctions-related procedure have been introduced, granting the affected party the right to present defences, being heard and being given access to the acts of the proceeding, before the formal imposition of fines;
• a coordination mechanism among the Golden Power Office and other public authorities, such as the Antitrust Authority (AGCM) and the Financial Police (‘Guardia di Finanza’), has been encouraged and is currently in the course of being implemented through the adoption of internal protocols;
• the internal procedure of the Presidency of Council of Ministry including the timing of transmission of the notification among offices, has been revised, without any substantial change; a “fast-track” procedure, which allows a simplified decision without the intervention by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, has been confirmed. Accordingly, intra-group transactions, which are still subject to mandatory filing, benefit from the simplified procedure (with a final decision therefore issued usually much earlier than the 45 days set out by the Law)

 The content of this article is for information purposes only and is not, and cannot be intended as, professional advice on the matters dealt with. For further information please contact:  Francesco Mazzocchi, Giuliano Berruti and Linda Lorenzon. [1] The Report is available at the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5286

• Tecnologie di fabbricazione; tecnologie digitali fondamentali, comprese le tecnologie quantistiche; tecnologie abilitanti emergenti
• Materiali avanzati
• Intelligenza artificiale e robotica
• Industrie circolari; industria pulita a basse emissioni di carbonio
• Malattie rare e non trasmissibili
• Impianti industriali nella transizione energetica
• Competitività industriale nel settore dei trasporti; mobilità e trasporti puliti, sicuri e accessibili; mobilità intelligente
• Stoccaggio dell’energia
• Sistemi alimentari; sistemi di bioinnovazione nella bioeconomia dell’Unione; sistemi circolari

Le imprese proponenti possono presentare progetti anche in forma congiunta tra loro, fino a un massimo di cinque soggetti co-proponenti. Inoltre, i progetti di ricerca e sviluppo devono prevedere spese e costi ammissibili non inferiori a 5 milioni di euro, avere una durata non superiore a 36 mesi ed essere avviati successivamente alla presentazione della domanda di agevolazioni al Ministero dello sviluppo economico.Le agevolazioni sono concesse nella forma del contributo diretto alla spesa, con un limite massimo pari al 50% dei costi ammissibili di ricerca industriale e al 25% dei costi ammissibili di sviluppo sperimentale.Le Regioni e le Province Autonome possono cofinanziare l’Accordo per l’innovazione, per una percentuale almeno pari al 5% dei costi e delle spese ammissibili complessivi; in questo caso è possibile richiedere anche un finanziamento agevolato, nel limite del 20% dei costi ammissibili di progetto[4].Nel caso in cui il progetto sia realizzato in forma congiunta attraverso una collaborazione effettiva tra almeno una impresa e uno o più Organismi di ricerca, il Ministero riconosce a ciascuno dei soggetti proponenti una maggiorazione del contributo diretto fino a 5 punti percentuali per le grandi imprese[5].Per poter accedere alle agevolazioni, è necessario che sia definito l’Accordo per l’innovazione tra il Ministero dello sviluppo economico, i soggetti proponenti e le eventuali amministrazioni pubbliche interessate al cofinanziamento dell’iniziativa.Per l’attivazione della procedura negoziale diretta alla definizione dell’Accordo per l’innovazione i soggetti proponenti devono presentare al Ministero dello sviluppo economico la domanda di agevolazioni corredata della scheda tecnica, del piano di sviluppo del progetto e, nel caso di progetto proposto congiuntamente da più soggetti, del contratto di collaborazione.Il Ministero, ricevuta la domanda di agevolazione, verifica la disponibilità delle risorse finanziarie e provvede all’istruttoria amministrativa, finanziaria e tecnica, sulla base della documentazione presentata, valutando una serie di caratteristiche.[6]Nel caso in cui le valutazioni istruttorie si concludano con esito positivo si procede alla definizione dell’Accordo per l’innovazione tra il Ministero, i soggetti proponenti e le eventuali amministrazioni pubbliche interessate al sostegno del progetto di ricerca e sviluppo.Il Ministero dello sviluppo economico ha inoltre dichiarato che, nel prossimo autunno, è in programma l’apertura di un nuovo sportello per la presentazione di domande relative ad Accordi per l’innovazione, con una dotazione finanziaria di ulteriori 500 milioni di euro. Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Per ulteriori informazioni si prega di contattare Marco Monaco.  [1] https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2022-06-30&atto.codiceRedazionale=22A03775&elenco30giorni=true[2] aree di intervento riconducibili al secondo Pilastro del Programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione “Horizon Europe”, di cui al Regolamento (UE) 2021/695 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 28 aprile 2021.[3] attività di cui all’art. 2195 del codice civile, numeri 1, 3 e 5[4] Al finanziamento precedente avevano contribuito anche Abruzzo, Campania, Lazio, Lombardia, Piemonte, Provincia autonoma di Trento, Puglia, Sicilia, Friuli Venezia-Giulia e Veneto.[5] nel limite dell’intensità massima di aiuto stabilita dall’articolo 25, paragrafo 6, del regolamento (UE) 651/2014[6] Le caratteristiche tecnico-economico-finanziarie e di ammissibilità del soggetto proponente; la coerenza del progetto con le finalità dichiarate e con quelle del decreto; la conformità del progetto alle disposizioni nazionali ed europee di riferimento; la fattibilità tecnica, la sostenibilità economico-finanziaria, la qualità tecnica e l’impatto del progetto di ricerca e sviluppo e la sussistenza delle condizioni di ammissibilità dello stesso; la pertinenza e la congruità delle spese e dei costi previsti dal progetto di ricerca e sviluppo.

Sono stati pubblicati, infatti, sul sito della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento per lo Sport due Avvisi pubblici, riguardanti 3 cluster di interventi, che disciplinano la procedura di aggiudicazione dei predetti finanziamenti per un totale di 700 milioni di euro.

Le domande per l’ottenimento dei finanziamenti possono essere presentate dai Capoluoghi di Regione, dai Capoluoghi di Provincia con popolazione residente superiore a 20.000 abitanti e dai Comuni con popolazione residente superiore a 50.000 abitanti (Cluster 1 e 2); dai Comuni sul cui territorio sono presenti impianti sportivi di proprietà pubblica o che siano proprietari di aree su cui realizzare i nuovi impianti per cui le Federazioni Sportive manifestino l’interesse (Cluster 3).

Le manifestazione di interesse dovranno essere inviate entro e non oltre le ore 12,00 del 22 aprile 2022 all'indirizzo PEC pnrrsport@pec.governo.it.

Si tratta di un importante tassello dell’ampio progetto di rigenerazione urbana con cui si intende promuovere la cultura sportiva e incentivare l’accesso allo sport, quale fattore di inclusione sociale.

Al seguente link l'approfondimento a cura di Marco Monaco e Roberta Guaineri.

Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. 

1. Il c.d. Superbonus disciplinato dal Decreto Legge 19 maggio 2020, n. 34

L’art. 119 del Decreto Legge n. 34/2020, convertito in legge, con modificazioni, dalla Legge 17 luglio 2020, n. 77 (di seguito, “Decreto Rilancio”), ha previsto l’applicazione del c.d. “Superbonus”, una detrazione fiscale che si applica – nella misura del 110% – a determinate spese sostenute dai contribuenti nel periodo intercorrente tra il 1 luglio 2020 e il 30 giugno 2022 [1] a fronte di specifici interventi in ambito di efficienza energetica, di interventi di riduzione del rischio sismico, di installazione di impianti fotovoltaici e di infrastrutture per la ricarica di veicoli elettrici all’interno degli edifici.Si tratta di un’agevolazione introdotta nell’ambito delle misure urgenti connesse all'emergenza epidemiologica da Covid-19, che consiste in detrazioni dall’imposta lorda ed è concessa quando si eseguono determinati interventi che aumentano il livello di efficienza energetica degli edifici esistenti o riducono il rischio sismico degli stessi.Il Decreto Rilancio, in particolare, distingue tra interventi “principali” o “trainanti” (la cui realizzazione attribuisce il diritto di accedere alle agevolazioni fiscali ivi disciplinate) e interventi “aggiuntivi” o “trainati” (che attribuiscono il diritto di accedere alle agevolazioni fiscali soltanto qualora vengano realizzati congiuntamente ad un intervento “principale”) [2].Nella prima categoria (interventi “trainanti”) rientrano:

• Interventi di isolamento termico degli involucri edilizi: si tratta di interventi di isolamento termico delle superfici opache verticali, orizzontali e inclinate che interessano l'involucro dell'edificio, anche qualora si tratti di un’unità immobiliare situata all'interno di edifici plurifamiliari che sia funzionalmente indipendente e disponga di uno o più accessi autonomi dall'esterno, purché gli interventi abbiano un’incidenza superiore al 25% della superficie disperdente lorda dell’edificio interessato [3];
• Sostituzione degli impianti di climatizzazione invernale sulle parti comuni degli edifici ovvero sugli edifici unifamiliari o sulle unità immobiliari di edifici plurifamiliari: si tratta di interventi finalizzati alla sostituzione degli impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti con impianti centralizzati per il riscaldamento, il raffrescamento o la fornitura di acqua calda sanitaria, dotati di specifici requisiti tecnici di efficienza [4];
• Interventi antisismici: il Decreto Rilancio ha elevato al 110% l’agevolazione già prevista per gli interventi antisismici dall’articolo 16, commi da 1-bis a 1-septies, del DL n. 63/2013 (c.d. “Sismabonus”) [5].

Appartengono, invece, alla categoria degli interventi “trainati”:

• Interventi di efficientamento energetico previsti dall’art. 14 del DL n. 63/2013: il Superbonus spetta anche per gli interventi di efficientamento energetico previsti dall’articolo 14 del DL n. 63/2013 (c.d. “Ecobonus”), purché vengano eseguiti congiuntamente ad almeno uno degli interventi di isolamento termico delle superfici opache o di sostituzione degli impianti di climatizzazione invernale esistenti [6];
• Installazione di impianti solari fotovoltaici: l’agevolazione in esame si applica anche alle spese sostenute per l’installazione di (i) impianti solari fotovoltaici connessi alla rete elettrica su edifici ai sensi dell’articolo 1, co. 1, lett. a, b, c, d, del DPR n. 412/1993 e (ii) sistemi di accumulo integrati negli impianti solari fotovoltaici agevolati (contestuale o successiva all’installazione degli impianti medesimi);
• Infrastrutture per la ricarica di veicoli elettrici: il Decreto Rilancio ha previsto che, qualora si proceda all’installazione di infrastrutture per la ricarica di veicoli elettrici negli edifici congiuntamente alla realizzazione di un intervento “trainante”, la detrazione già prevista dall’art. 16-ter del DL n. 63/2013 venga elevata al 110% [7].

Va evidenziato, infine, che il Decreto Rilancio ha altresì introdotto la possibilità generalizzata di optare, in luogo della fruizione diretta della detrazione, per un contributo anticipato sotto forma di sconto dai fornitori dei beni o servizi oppure, in alternativa, per la cessione del credito corrispondente alla detrazione spettante.Ai sensi dell’art. 121, infatti, i soggetti che sostengono spese per gli interventi ivi espressamente elencati[8] possono optare, in luogo dell'utilizzo diretto della detrazione spettante, alternativamente: (i) per un contributo, sotto forma di sconto sul corrispettivo dovuto, di importo massimo non superiore al corrispettivo stesso, anticipato dal fornitore di beni e servizi relativi agli interventi agevolati; (ii) per la cessione di un credito d'imposta corrispondente alla detrazione spettante, ad altri soggetti, ivi inclusi istituti di credito e altri intermediari finanziari, con facoltà di successive cessioni. 

2. Ambito di applicazione del “Superbonus”

Una volta individuati gli interventi dalla cui realizzazione deriva il diritto di accedere al c.d. Superbonus, è utile precisare l’ambito soggettivo di applicazione della normativa in esame.A tal proposito, il comma 9 dell’art. 119 del Decreto Rilancio precisa che il Superbonus si applica agli interventi effettuati dai condomìni; da persone fisiche al di fuori dell'esercizio di attività di impresa, arte o professione; dagli Istituti autonomi case popolari (Iacp), comunque denominati, nonché dagli enti aventi le stesse finalità sociali dei predetti Istituti, istituiti nella forma di società che rispondono ai requisiti della legislazione europea in materia di "in house providing”; dalle cooperative di abitazione a proprietà indivisa; dalle ONLUS di cui all’art. 10 del D.Lgs. n. 460/1997, dalle organizzazioni di volontariato iscritte nei registri di cui alla legge n. 266/1991 e dalle associazioni di promozione sociale iscritte nei registri nazionali, regionali e delle provincie autonome; dalle associazioni e società sportive dilettantistiche iscritte nel registro istituito ai sensi dell’art. 5, co. 2, lett. c), del D.Llgs. n. 242/1999, limitatamente ai lavori destinati ai soli immobili o parti di immobili adibiti a spogliatoi [9].L’Agenzia delle Entrate, inoltre, ha precisato che la detrazione spetta ai soggetti che possiedono o detengono l’immobile oggetto dell’intervento in base ad un titolo idoneo al momento di avvio dei lavori o al momento del sostenimento delle spese, se antecedente il predetto avvio. Si tratta, in particolare, del proprietario, del nudo proprietario o del titolare di altro diritto reale di godimento (usufrutto, uso, abitazione o superficie), del detentore dell’immobile in base ad un contratto di locazione, anche finanziaria, o di comodato, regolarmente registrato, in possesso del consenso all’esecuzione dei lavori da parte del proprietario nonché dei familiari del possessore o detentore dell’immobile. 

3. Le novità introdotte dal comma 9-bis del Decreto Rilancio

L’art. 63, comma 1 del DL n. 104/2020 ha modificato il testo originario dell’art. 119 del Decreto Rilancio, introducendo un nuovo comma 9-bis ai sensi del quale “Le deliberazioni dell'assemblea del condominio aventi per oggetto l'approvazione degli interventi di cui al presente articolo e degli eventuali finanziamenti finalizzati agli stessi, nonché l'adesione all'opzione per la cessione o per lo sconto di cui all'articolo 121, sono valide se approvate con un numero di voti che rappresenti la maggioranza degli intervenuti e almeno un terzo del valore dell'edificio […]. [10]”La norma, pertanto, prevede una riduzione – rispetto alle previsioni dettate dall’art. 1136 c.c. – delle maggioranze richieste per l’assunzione delle delibere assembleari aventi per oggetto l’approvazione degli interventi che danno diritto al c.d. Superbonus.Secondo la disciplina codicistica, infatti, (i) le deliberazioni relative alla ricostruzione dell'edificio, alle riparazioni straordinarie di notevole entità oppure alle innovazioni volte a migliorare la sicurezza e la salubrità degli edifici e degli impianti e a contenere il consumo energetico degli edifici devono essere sempre approvate con un numero di voti che rappresenti la maggioranza degli intervenuti e almeno la metà del valore dell'edificio [11] e (ii) le deliberazioni concernenti innovazioni dirette al miglioramento o all’uso più comodo o al maggior rendimento delle cose comuni devono essere approvate con un numero di voti che rappresenti la maggioranza degli intervenuti ed almeno i due terzi del valore dell'edificio [12].Il Decreto Rilancio, dunque, prevede una regolamentazione più flessibile di quella ordinaria, proprio al fine di incentivare gli interventi antisismici e di riqualificazione energetica degli edifici.Va evidenziato, infine, che la seconda parte del comma 9-bis dell’art. 119 del Decreto Rilancio precisa che “Le deliberazioni dell'assemblea del condominio, aventi per oggetto l'imputazione a uno o più condomini dell'intera spesa riferita all'intervento deliberato, sono valide se approvate con le stesse modalità di cui al periodo precedente e a condizione che i condomini ai quali sono imputate le spese esprimano parere favorevole”.Di conseguenza, qualora le spese degli interventi dovessero venire imputate a singoli condomini, si renderebbe in ogni caso necessario ottenere il parere favorevole di questi ultimi. Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Per ulteriori informazioni si prega di contattare Marco Cappa o Michelangelo Eugenio Maida   [1] L’art. 1, comma 66, lett. a), n. 1 della Legge n. 178/2020 ha modificato il comma 1 dell’art. 119 del DL n. 34/2020, sostituendo le parole “31 dicembre 2021” con le parole “30 giugno 2022”.[2] Tuttavia, indipendentemente da tale distinzione, il comma 3 dell’art. 119 del Decreto Rilancio precisa che, per entrambe le categorie di interventi, “Ai fini dell'accesso alla detrazione, gli interventi […] nel loro complesso, devono assicurare […] il miglioramento di almeno due classi energetiche dell'edificio o delle unità immobiliari situate all'interno di edifici plurifamiliari le quali siano funzionalmente indipendenti e dispongano di uno o più accessi autonomi dall'esterno, ovvero, se ciò non sia possibile, il conseguimento della classe energetica più alta, da dimostrare mediante l'attestato di prestazione energetica (A.P.E.), di cui all'articolo 6 del decreto legislativo 19 agosto 2005, n. 192, prima e dopo l'intervento, rilasciato da un tecnico abilitato nella forma della dichiarazione asseverata”.[3] Art. 119, co. 1, lett. a) del DL n. 34/2020.[4] Art. 119, co. 1, lett. b) e c) del DL n. 34/2020.[5] Art. 119, co. 4 del DL n. 34/2020.[6] Art. 119, co. 2 del DL n. 34/2020: tale norma, inoltre, precisa altresì che gli interventi di efficientamento energetico indicati nel citato articolo 14 del DL n. 63/2013 attribuiscono il diritto di accedere al Superbonus, anche a prescindere dalla effettuazione degli interventi di isolamento termico o di sostituzione degli impianti di climatizzazione invernali esistenti, qualora l’edificio interessato sia sottoposto alla tutela disciplinata dal Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio ovvero tali interventi non possano essere realizzati per effetto di regolamenti edilizi, urbanistici e ambientali.[7] Art. 119, co. 8 del DL n. 34/2020.[8] Art. 121, co. 2 del DL n. 34/2020: “In deroga all’ articolo 14, commi 2-ter, 2-sexies e 3.1, e all’ articolo 16, commi 1-quinquies, terzo, quarto e quinto periodo, e 1-septies, secondo e terzo periodo, del decreto legge 4 giugno 2013, n. 63, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 3 agosto 2013, n. 90, le disposizioni contenute nel presente articolo si applicano per le spese relative agli interventi di: a)  recupero del patrimonio edilizio di cui all'articolo 16-bis, comma 1, lettere a) e b), del testo unico delle imposte sui redditi, di cui al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917; b)  efficienza energetica di cui all’ articolo 14 del decreto-legge 4 giugno 2013, n. 63, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 3 agosto 2013, n. 90 e di cui ai commi 1 e 2 dell'articolo 119; c)  adozione di misure antisismiche di cui all’ articolo 16, commi da 1-bis a 1-septies del decreto-legge 4 giugno 2013, n. 63, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 3 agosto 2013, n. 90, e di cui al comma 4 dell'articolo 119; d)  recupero o restauro della facciata degli edifici esistenti, ivi inclusi quelli di sola pulitura o tinteggiatura esterna, di cui all’ articolo 1, commi 219 e 220, della legge 27 dicembre 2019, n. 160; e)  installazione di impianti fotovoltaici di cui all’ articolo 16-bis, comma 1, lettera h) del testo unico delle imposte sui redditi di cui al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 22 dicembre 1986, n. 917, ivi compresi gli interventi di cui ai commi 5 e 6 dell'articolo 119 del presente decreto; f)  installazione di colonnine per la ricarica dei veicoli elettrici di cui all’ articolo 16-ter del decreto-legge 4 giugno 2013, n. 63, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 3 agosto 2013, n. 90, e di cui al comma 8 dell'articolo 119”.[9] Più nel dettaglio, l’art. 119, co. 9 del DL n. 34/2020 prevede che: “Le disposizioni contenute nei commi da 1 a 8 si applicano agli interventi effettuati: a)  dai condomini e dalle persone fisiche, al di fuori dell'esercizio di attività di impresa, arte o professione, con riferimento agli interventi su edifici composti da due a quattro unità immobiliari distintamente accatastate, anche se posseduti da un unico proprietario o in comproprietà da più persone fisiche; b)  dalle persone fisiche, al di fuori dell'esercizio di attività di impresa, arti e professioni, su unità immobiliari, salvo quanto previsto al comma 10; c)  dagli istituti autonomi case popolari (IACP) comunque denominati nonché dagli enti aventi le stesse finalità sociali dei predetti istituti, istituiti nella forma di società che rispondono ai requisiti della legislazione europea in materia di “ in house providing” per interventi realizzati su immobili, di loro proprietà ovvero gestiti per conto dei comuni, adibiti ad edilizia residenziale pubblica; d)  dalle cooperative di abitazione a proprietà indivisa, per interventi realizzati su immobili dalle stesse posseduti e assegnati in godimento ai propri soci; d-bis)  dalle organizzazioni non lucrative di utilità sociale di cui all'articolo 10 del decreto legislativo 4 dicembre 1997, n. 460, dalle organizzazioni di volontariato iscritte nei registri di cui all'articolo 6 della legge 11 agosto 1991, n. 266, e dalle associazioni di promozione sociale iscritte nel registro nazionale e nei registri regionali e delle province autonome di Trento e di Bolzano previsti dall'articolo 7 della legge 7 dicembre 2000, n. 383; e)  dalle associazioni e società sportive dilettantistiche iscritte nel registro istituito ai sensi dell'articolo 5, comma 2, lettera c), del decreto legislativo 23 luglio 1999, n. 242, limitatamente ai lavori destinati ai soli immobili o parti di immobili adibiti a spogliatoi”.[10] Si tratta di una previsione in linea con quanto già in precedenza disposto dall’art. 26, co. 2 della Legge n. 10/1991, ai sensi del quale “Per gli interventi sugli edifici e sugli impianti volti al contenimento del consumo energetico ed all'utilizzazione delle fonti di energia di cui all’articolo 1, individuati attraverso un attestato di prestazione energetica o una diagnosi energetica realizzata da un tecnico abilitato, le pertinenti decisioni condominiali sono valide se adottate con la maggioranza degli intervenuti, con un numero di voti che rappresenti almeno un terzo del valore dell'edificio”.[11] Art. 1136, co. 2 e 4 e art. 1120, co. 2, n. 1 e 2 c.c.[12] Art. 1120, co. 1, c.c.

Cosa è la requisizione?

Quali beni possono essere requisiti in uso dai Prefetti?

• le strutture alberghiere ovvero
• altri immobili aventi analoghe caratteristiche di idoneità.

Il provvedimento del Prefetto deve essere motivato dalla necessità di disporre temporaneamente di beni immobili per far fronte ad improrogabili esigenze connesse con l'emergenza sanitaria del COVID-19. Le strutture alberghiere e gli immobili così requisiti possono essere infatti utilizzati per ospitare le persone in sorveglianza sanitaria e isolamento fiduciario o in permanenza domiciliare e delle relative procedure indennitarie, qualora, una vola dimessi i pazienti in fase acuta, non sia possibile per gli stessi il confinamento al proprio domicilio.Ne consegue che, sulla base delle disposizioni del Decreto Cura Italia, soltanto gli alberghi e gli immobili dotati dei requisiti strutturali minimi per garantire la sorveglianza sanitaria dei pazienti COVID-19 sono requisibili e che, in più, tale requisizione può essere disposta solo per l’uso degli stessi (quindi per un tempo limitato) e non anche per acquisirne la proprietà.I proprietari degli alberghi e degli immobili, quindi, potenzialmente requisibili potrebbero avviare sin da subito verifiche sulla conformità degli stessi rispetto ai requisiti minimi strutturali richiesti dalla normativa vigente per la requisizione. Ciò in quanto, nel periodo “post quarantena”, potrebbero essere necessari – immediatamente- immobili pronti all’uso.

Quali indennità sono previste per tali requisizioni in uso?

Con quali tempistiche saranno corrisposte le suindicate indennità?

• se nel decreto di requisizione in uso non è indicato per la restituzione un termine inferiore[3], l'indennità corrisposta al proprietario è provvisoriamente liquidata con riferimento al numero di mesi o frazione di mesi intercorrenti tra la data del provvedimento e quella del termine dell'emergenza (ivi incluse eventuali proroghe)[4];
• in ogni caso di prolungamento della requisizione, la differenza tra l'indennità già corrisposta e quella spettante per l'ulteriore periodo è liquidata al proprietario entro 30 giorni dalla scadenza del termine originariamente indicato.

Quale tutela giurisdizione contro i provvedimenti del Prefetto?

Esistono modalità consensuali per definire la requisizione?

• la sospensione dei termini per la conclusione dei procedimenti amministrativi, stabilendo che “ai fini del computo dei termini ordinatori o perentori, propedeutici, endoprocedimentali, finali ed esecutivi, relativi allo svolgimento di procedimenti amministrativi su istanza di parte o d’ufficio, pendenti alla data del 23 febbraio 2020 o iniziati successivamente a tale data, non si tiene conto del periodo compreso tra la medesima data e quella del 15 aprile 2020”.
• la proroga o il differimento per il tempo corrispondente, dei termini di formazione della volontà conclusiva dell’amministrazione nelle forme del silenzio significativo.

Inoltre, “tutti i certificati, attestati, permessi, concessioni, autorizzazioni e atti abilitativi comunque denominati, in scadenza tra il 31 gennaio e il 15 aprile 2020, conservano la loro validità fino al 15 giugno 2020”, prevedendo così una proroga ex lege della validità dei suindicati atti.Quali sono le conseguenze concrete? In particolare nel settore immobiliare?La normativa sopracitata incide, ad esempio, sui termini previsti dalla legge:

• per il consolidamento della segnalazione certificata di inizio attività (la “SCIA”),
• per la validità del permesso di costruire,
• per l’esercizio del diritto di prelazione da parte del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo,
• per l’approvazione di un piano attuativo o di una variante allo stesso, etc..

Alcune ipotesi concrete:

• SCIA protocollata il 10 febbraio 2020 relativa alla realizzazione di un intervento edilizio.Ai sensi dell’articolo 19, comma 3, della L. 241/1990, nel termine di 30 giorni dal ricevimento della SCIA, l’Amministrazione può adottare “motivati provvedimenti di divieto di prosecuzione dell'attività e di rimozione degli eventuali effetti dannosi di essa”.Per effetto dell’articolo 103 del Decreto Cura Italia, tale termine - originariamente in scadenza l’11 marzo 2020 - scadrà il prossimo 3 maggio.
• Compravendita di un immobile di interesse culturale vincolato ai sensi del D.lgs. 42/2004.Il diritto di prelazione può essere esercitato dal Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo nel termine di 60 giorni dalla data di ricezione della denuncia di trasferimento, ovvero nel termine di 180 giorni dalla ricezione di denuncia tardiva.Orbene, poniamo che la denuncia di trasferimento sia stata trasmessa il 10 febbraio 2020, il termine finale entro il quale il Ministero potrà esercitare il diritto di prelazione - originariamente in scadenza il 10 aprile 2020 - scadrà il 2 giugno 2020.
• Permesso di costruire con termine per la conclusione dei lavori in scadenza al 1° febbraio 2020, allo stato, è prorogato fino al 15 giugno 2020.Va comunque ricordato che l’articolo 15 del DPR 380/2001 stabilisce la possibilità di accordare una proroga ai termini di inizio o di fine lavori del permesso di costruire, con provvedimento motivato, per fatti sopravvenuti, estranei alla volontà del titolare del permesso.
• Procedimento preordinato all’approvazione di un piano attuativo, ovvero di una variante allo stesso, ai sensi della L.R. Lombardia n. 12/2005, relativamente al quale il termine per la presentazione delle osservazioni da parte dei terzi interessati è scaduto il 31 gennaio 2020, il termine di 60 giorni entro il quale la Pubblica Amministrazione deve approvare definitivamente il piano attuativo - originariamente in scadenza il 31 marzo 2020 - scadrà il prossimo 23 maggio 2020.

La norma precisa però che “le pubbliche amministrazioni adottano ogni misura organizzativa idonea ad assicurare comunque la ragionevole durata e la celere conclusione dei procedimenti, con priorità per quelli da considerare urgenti, anche sulla base di motivate istanze degli interessati”. Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Resta altresì inteso che il contenuto di questo elaborato prescinde dalla verifica della sussistenza dei presupposti di fatto e di diritto relativi alla validità e all’efficacia dei titoli edilizi o dei procedimenti urbanistici.Per ulteriori informazioni si prega di contattare il vostro professionista di riferimento ovvero di scrivere ai seguenti indirizzi: Dipartimento immobiliare: Luigi Croce, Christian Mocellin, Rosemarie Serrato; Dipartimento amministrativo: Giuliano Berruti, Marco Monaco, Francesca Bonino

Con il Decreto Legge 17 marzo 2020 n. 18 (il “Decreto cura – Italia”), pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale in data 17 marzo 2020 (e non ancora convertito in legge), sono state disposte, tra gli altri interventi, nuove misure in materia di giustizia amministrativa, di procedimenti amministrativi e di adempimenti in materia ambientale. Esse consentono di superare le precedenti disposizioni dettate dal D.L. n. 11 pubblicato in data 8 marzo 2020 che facevano riferimento solo alle misure in materia di giustizia amministrativa e non anche alla sospensione dei procedimenti amministrativi. Il Decreto Legge 8 aprile 2020, n. 23 ("D.L. 23/2020"), pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale in data 8 aprile 2020, ha da ultimo disposto la proroga di alcune di queste misure.

• i termini per la presentazione dei ricorsi di primo e di secondo grado, del ricorso incidentale, dei motivi aggiunti, di altri ricorsi aventi natura impugnatori (ad es. il ricorso per revocazione o il ricorso per opposizione di terzo) sono sospesi dall'8 marzo 2020 al 3 maggio 2020;
• i termini per gli altri atti (es. memorie, repliche) o per gli adempimenti processuali (deposito del ricorso, dei motivi aggiunti, etc.) restano sospesi dall'8 marzo al 15 aprile 2020;
• la sospensione non si applica ai termini relativi ai procedimenti cautelari.

2. Rinvio delle udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate tra il 17 marzo e il 15 aprile 2020; il rito speciale per i procedimenti cautelari – articolo 84, comma 1 del Decreto Cura ItaliaTutte le udienze pubbliche e camerali relative a procedimenti già pendenti e fissate in tale arco temporale saranno rinviate d’ufficio a data successiva.I procedimenti cautelari promossi o pendenti nel periodo suindicato:

1.  sono decisi con decreto monocratico del Presidente o del magistrato da lui delegato nel rispetto dei termini a difesa   (previsti dall’art. 55, comma 5 c.p.a.) e previa verifica della corretta instaurazione del contraddittorio;
2. il decreto monocratico fissa la camera di consiglio, in data immediatamente successiva al 15 aprile 2020, per la discussione in contraddittorio della domanda cautelare;
3. il decreto monocratico è efficace fino alla camera di consiglio fissata per la discussione della domanda cautelare, ed è revocabile o modificabile su istanza di parte.

Nel caso di estrema gravità ed urgenza tale da non consentire neppure la dilazione della decisione cautelare nel rispetto degli ordinari termini a difesa, può essere sempre richiesta la pronuncia di decreto monocratico, che sarà emanato seguendo il suo regime ordinario di cui all’articolo 56 c.p.a..3. Il rito speciale delle udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate in data tra il 6 aprile e il 15 aprile 2020 – articolo 84, comma 2 del Decreto Cura ItaliaPer tali udienze è previsto un rito speciale in deroga alla disciplina descritta nel precedente paragrafo 2.Il rito speciale si applica solo se richiesto da tutte le parti con istanza congiunta da depositare entro il termine perentorio di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza:

1. la controversia passa in decisione senza discussione orale sulla base degli atti depositati;
2. le parti hanno facoltà di depositare brevi note fino a due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza;
3. nei procedimenti cautelari nei quali sia stato emanato decreto monocratico di accoglimento, totale o parziale, della domanda cautelare la trattazione collegiale in camera di consiglio è fissata, ove possibile, nella prima camera di consiglio utile successiva al 6 aprile 2020;
4. il collegio definisce la fase cautelare secondo quanto previsto dal presente comma, salvo che entro il termine di due giorni liberi prima della camera di consiglio una delle parti su cui incide la misura cautelare depositi un’istanza di rinvio; in tal caso la trattazione collegiale è rinviata a data immediatamente successiva al 15 aprile 2020.

4. Udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate in data tra il 16 aprile e il 30 giugno 2020 – articolo 84, comma 5 del Decreto Cura ItaliaLe controversie passano in decisione senza discussione orale e sulla base degli atti depositati.Resta ferma la possibilità di definizione del giudizio con sentenza in forma semplificata ai sensi dell’articolo 60 c.p.a.; non essendovi discussione orale, non si applica l’obbligo di dare avviso alle parti in tal senso.Per le udienze pubbliche in ordine alle quali i termini di scadenza per la produzione di documenti e memorie ricadano nel periodo di sospensione dei termini (8 marzo – 15 arile 2020) le parti:

1. hanno la facoltà di presentare brevi note entro il termine di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza, oppure
2. entro lo stesso termine di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza, possono chiedere la rimessione in termini per il deposito di documenti e memorie.

In tal caso, il giudice adotta i provvedimenti per l’ulteriore e più sollecito svolgimento del processo, fissando eventualmente nuova udienza, in relazione alla quale i termini per produzione di documenti, memorie e repliche (art. 73, co. 1, c.p.a.) sono ridotti alla metà.5. Misure organizzative per contenere eventuali effetti negativi dell’emergenza sanitaria – articolo 84, commi 3 e 4 del Decreto Cura ItaliaGli organi della giustizia amministrativa e, in particolare, i presidenti titolari delle sezioni del Consiglio di Stato, il presidente del Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana e i presidenti dei tribunali amministrativi regionali e delle relative sezioni distaccate, sentiti l’autorità sanitaria regionale e il Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati della città ove ha sede l’Ufficio, possono adottare le misure organizzative, anche incidenti sulla trattazione degli affari giudiziari e consultivi, necessarie per consentire il rispetto delle indicazioni igienico-sanitarie fornite dal Ministero della salute al fine di evitare assembramenti all’interno degli uffici giudiziari e contatti ravvicinati tra le persone.Tra queste, potrebbero essere adottate anche le misure di rinvio delle udienze a data successiva al 30 giugno 2020, assicurandone comunque la trattazione con priorità, anche mediante una ricalendarizzazione delle udienze, fatta eccezione per le udienze e camere di consiglio cautelari, elettorali, e per le cause rispetto alle quali la ritardata trattazione potrebbe produrre grave pregiudizio alle parti.Per queste ultime cause, la dichiarazione di urgenza è fatta con decreto non impugnabile dai soggetti che adottano le misure suindicate.Laddove l’adozione delle misure organizzative suindicate possa determinare la decadenza delle parti da facoltà processuali, opera di diritto la rimessione in termini delle parti stesse.E’ inoltre prevista la possibilità per il collegio giudicante di riunire la camera di consiglio per la decisione dei giudizi (di merito e cautelari) avvalendosi di collegamenti da remoto.6. Procedimenti amministrativi – articolo 103 del Decreto Cura Italia; articolo 37 del D.L. 23/2020Secondo l'art. 103 del Decreto Cura Italia, modificato dall'art. 37 del D.L. 23/2020, ai fini del computo dei termini ordinatori o perentori, propedeutici, endoprocedimentali, finali ed esecutivi, relativi allo svolgimento di procedimenti amministrativi su istanza di parte o d’ufficio, pendenti alla data del 23 febbraio 2020 o iniziati successivamente a tale data, non si tiene conto del periodo compreso tra la medesima data e quella del 15 maggio 2020, al fine di evitare che la Pubblica Amministrazione incorra in eventuali ritardi o nel formarsi del silenzio significativo.Sono altresì prorogati o differiti, per il tempo corrispondente, i termini di formazione della volontà conclusiva dell’amministrazione nelle forme del silenzio significativo previste dall’ordinamento.In ogni caso, è richiesto alle pubbliche amministrazioni di adottare "ogni misura organizzativa idonea ad assicurare comunque la ragionevole durata e la celere conclusione dei procedimenti, con priorità per quelli da considerare urgenti, anche sulla base di motivate istanze degli interessati".Inoltre, tutte le autorizzazioni, i permessi ed i provvedimenti abilitativi, comunque denominati, in scadenza nel periodo compreso tra il 31 gennaio 2020 e il 15 aprile 2020 conservano validità ed efficacia fino al 15 giugno 2020.La sospensione dei termini procedimentali non si applica, per espressa previsione di cui al comma 4, ai pagamenti da disporsi da parte delle pubbliche amministrazioni.È infine sospesa fino al 30 giugno 2020 l’esecuzione dei provvedimenti di rilascio di immobili, compresi quelli ad uso non abitativo.7. Adempimenti in materia di rifiuti – articolo 113 del Decreto Cura ItaliaSono prorogate al 30 giugno 2020 le scadenze di alcuni adempimenti relativi ai rifiuti, ossia:a) presentazione del modello unico di dichiarazione ambientale (MUD) di cui all’articolo 6, comma 2, della legge 25 gennaio 1994, n. 70;b) presentazione della comunicazione annuale dei dati relativi alle pile e accumulatori immessi sul mercato nazionale nell'anno precedente, di cui all’articolo 15, comma 3, del decreto legislativo 20 novembre 2008, n. 188, nonché trasmissione dei dati relativi alla raccolta ed al riciclaggio dei rifiuti di pile ed accumulatori portatili, industriali e per veicoli ai sensi dell’articolo 17, comma 2, lettera c), del decreto legislativo 20 novembre 2008, n. 188;c) presentazione al Centro di Coordinamento della comunicazione di cui all’articolo 33, comma 2, del decreto legislativo n. 14 marzo 2014, n. 49 (in materia di Rifiuti da Apparecchiature Elettriche ed Elettroniche – “RAEE”);d) versamento del diritto annuale di iscrizione all’Albo nazionale gestori ambientali di cui all’articolo 24, comma 4, del decreto 3 giugno 2014, n. 120. Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Per ulteriori informazioni contattare Giuliano Berruti, Marco Monaco, Francesca Bonino, Rosemarie Serrato, Carmine Morrone, Valentina Cavanna o Annapaola Prezioso.

Come funziona il Fondo

Un caso pilota?

1. Introduction

The Renewable Energy Directive[1] has set ambitious renewable energy sources (RES) targets and in order to reach these binding targets most Member States grant support to RES generation. This might qualify as State aid to the producers of renewable energy sources. Such support is often financed through a levy on the electricity bills, meaning that the cost of the levies to finance such support is ultimately borne by the energy users ("final consumers"). Some of these final consumers can however be partially exempted from these levies. Also this can be qualified as State aid if the waiving of charges is in favour of consumer-undertakings and the other conditions set out in Article 107 TFEU are fulfilled. However, this aid can be qualified as compatible with the internal market. In fact under the 2014 Energy and Environment State Aid Guidelines (EEAG)^[2], the Commission can authorise Member States to partially compensate energy-intensive users (EIUs) for the cost they bear to finance RES support that are passed on in the electricity price^[3]. The present contribution will only deal with the second aid measure.EIUs may be particularly affected by the costs borne because of the levy to finance RES support, due to their high electricity consumption and exposure to competition from non-EU undertakings which are not subject to these costs. The EEAG accordingly allows Member States to partially compensate for these costs to avoid that they are put at a significant competitive disadvantage and that the financing of renewable support may be unsustainable.On the one hand, the major environmental concern seems to rest on the fact that a possible relocation of such EIUs outside the concerned Member State would entail a transfer of emissions to countries where there are no environmental protection standards, or where these standards are less stringent then in the EU, thus contributing to growing emissions and increased overall environmental pollution. On the other hand, the other underlying reason for allowing this type of aid is based on economic grounds. It is argued that, in the absence of such support, the affected undertakings are likely to become less competitive and will be forced to cease trading with adverse effects especially in terms of reduction in output and environmental charges, which finance environmental and climate change policies in the concerned Member States.Against this framework, the Commission has already approved, under the new EEAG, the partial compensation schemes laid down by several Member States, including Germany^[4], Romania^[5], Denmark^[6] and the UK^[7]. The planned compensation schemes in other Member States are currently under assessment^[8]. As we will describe in the next chapter, in the past the Commission adopted a different approach when assessing similar, albeit non-identical, support measures.2. Past case practice: is 2011 the dividing line?The reduction of the charges levied by Member States in order to finance RES support schemes normally constitute operating aid for large energy-intensive companies. According to the case-law, operating aid does not fall within the scope of art 107(3) TFEU, as the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sector in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being unable to achieve any of the objectives listed in article 107(3) TFEU.^[9]. In the past the Commission authorised operating aid only in very specific situations, where the particular distortive effect of operating aid was balanced by particularly important benefits for the common interest.Since the Alcan decision in 1986 the Commission has taken the view that operating aid for energy-intensive companies cannot be declared compatible with the internal market^[10]. Along the same lines, the Commission decided that operating aid in the form of reduced electricity tariffs for aluminium production in Italy (Sardinia) and Greece were not compatible with the internal market^[11]. In policy terms, these cases (confirmed by the case-law) are important because they regard the Commission's refusal to authorize operating aid given under the form of electricity price subsidies in favour of certain energy-intensive industries based on the alleged "imperfect state of liberalization" of the EU electricity market or the threat of relocation outside the European Union. State aid control aims generally at preventing this type of aid liable to generate subsidy races between Member States.With reference to reductions of parafiscal levies having the specific purpose of financing support for RES, in 2011 the Commission decided that a partial exemption from the obligation to purchase green electricity for energy-intensive businesses given by Austria^[12] constituted operating aid and resulted in the imposition of a higher burden on other electricity consumers without providing any environmental benefit. According to the Commission, such forms of exemption “may even harm the environment by lowering the incentives for energy saving”. Therefore, at that time, Austria was forbidden to go ahead with the implementation of such measure under the 2008 Environmental State Aid Guidelines.3. The EEAG and new case practiceIn 2013/2014, in view of reviewing the 2008 Environmental State Aid Guidelines, the Commission conducted an extensive open consultation. In this context it was raised that mechanisms to support national industries against the increasing costs linked to electricity were needed[13]. EIUs in fact play a major role in terms of national employment and GDP and their relocation might affect greatly the economy of a Member State. Indeed, some Member States adopted some kind of supporting measures already before the adoption of the revised EEAG.^[14]The Commission in April 2014 released the new EEAG which includes a chapter on State aid to partially relieve certain undertakings from financing RES support schemes^[15]. The Commission in setting out on which conditions financial compensation for EIUs can be granted aims at ensuring that State aid rules are correctly applied and respected by all Member States^[16]. By doing so the Commission provides a framework within which Member States can grant compensation while at the same time maintaining a level playing field in the European Union. The Commission has therefore formally recognised that those companies are generally put at a competitive disadvantage globally and deserve a special treatment when it comes to surcharge to fund RES support schemes which became too costly as of 2011.The EEAG entered into force on 1 July 2014, however the rules for EIUs apply retroactively to all ongoing and past cases even to the ones that have not been notified before implementation and which normally under State aid discipline, should be assessed according to the rules applicable at the time of granting the aid^[17].Those aid measures granted in the past without a legal basis for compatibility will have to progressively comply with the requirements set forth in the EEAG from the granting moment (which could well be prior to the entry into force of EEAG) until the end of 2018.^[18]The EEAG indicates that "all aid granted in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources prior to 1/1/2011 can be declared compatible with the internal market". In this context the Commission substitutes its case-by-case assessment working under the assumption that “by 5 December 2010, the Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the RED, which introduces legally binding targets for consumption of renewable energy. On the other hand, the total costs for the support of the production of electricity from renewable sources remained rather limited until the year 2010, so that the level of charges remained relatively low. Therefore, the amount of aid granted to undertakings in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources remained limited at the level of the individual beneficiary”.The EEAG defines ex ante quite a tight framework for the compatibility of such aid measures in terms of qualifying conditions for the eligible beneficiaries. First of all according to those rules, undertakings can benefit from reductions only on the charges financing RES support. Therefore even in case the surcharge happens to cover the financing of other measures such as research and development, transmission charges, nuclear decommissioning, islands interconnection, the Member State should be able to allocate a certain amount to the RES funding. Secondly, only electro-intensive users can benefit from such reductions in the RES charges. Thirdly, with the aim to reach a level playing field, the EEAG pre-selected the business sectors which qualify ex ante as eligible to this form of aid. The list of these sectors has been annexed to the EEAG^[19]. These are sectors which are exposed to a risk to their competitive position due to the costs resulting from the funding of support to energy from renewable sources as a function of their electro-intensity and their exposure to international trade. That is why the EEAG talks about intensity of their electricity costs and their trade intensity.However, the EEAG also include the possibility for the Member States to add more sectors provided that the trade intensity of these sectors is at least 4% and aid is limited to undertakings with an electro-intensity of at least 20% as required by paragraph (186) of the EEAG (with electro-intensity calculated according to Annex   4 EEAG or in line with paragraph (195) EEAG)^[20].As a consequence once those sectors are authorised by the Commission, they could then also be included by all other Member States wishing to enlarge the list of eligible sectors.In order to cater for some specificities of each Member States, the EEAG leaves to the Member States the possibility to reduce the number of potential beneficiaries imposing additional eligibility criteria provided that within the eligible sectors the choice of beneficiaries is made on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory and transparent criteria and that the aid is granted in the same way for all competitors in the same sector if they are in a similar factual situation. This is often a possibility retained by Member States which do not intend to include all companies or all sectors listed in the Annexes to the EEAG, probably as this would imply enlarging too much the number of beneficiaries and not fitting into the envisaged national budget earmarked to this measure. However, this possibility does not grant Member States an unlimited right to identify the eligible companies as the Commission is entitled to verify whether this selection complies with the mentioned criteria of transparency, objectivity and non-discrimination. In this context the Commission already carefully assessed whether the conditions imposed by Denmark and Romania were de facto discriminatory. Denmark granted aid, inter alia, only (1) to companies which commit to certain energy-efficiency improvements, (2) if the aid amount exceeds approximately 2680 Euro. Romania imposed different conditions on which the Commission raised some observations as to their compatibility with the general principles of objectivity, non-discrimination (and the freedom of establishment) set out in the EEAG. In fact, amongst other limitations, the beneficiaries had to maintain their activities in Romania during the aid scheme and could not lay off more than 25% of the number of the employees at the time of qualification for the measure. After negotiation with the Commission, as reported in the decision, the condition was changed by Romania into an obligation not to relocate outside the EEA. Finally, the aid will be considered proportionate if the beneficiary continues to bear at least 15% of the additional costs without reduction, with an optional cap that Member States can put in place to further reduce the surcharges paid in case certain EIUs have a very high consumption.^[21]. Against this background, if on the one hand the Commission should be welcomed for transparently setting out in advance how it will assess the aid measures benefitting EIUs and indicating the possible sets of beneficiaries which are the ones more endangered by the increasing costs of electricity and more exposed to international trade, on the other hand, a more flexible approach is still necessary, with a view to allowing Member States to perform specific assessments on competition grounds aimed at taking into account the competitive dynamics of the markets at both national and EU level (depending on the geographic scope of the relevant market). This would also permit Member States to showing which sectors and which undertakings are negatively affected by the RES surcharge. This is even more important in the context of an Energy Union not yet completed where there are still many differences in terms of RES support and its related costs. [1] Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives  (EC) 2001/77 and 2003/30 (OJ 2009 L 140, p.16).[2] Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, [2014] OJ C200/1.[3] Other supports for businesses, including EIUs, related to environmental protection are: (1) a partial compensation for the indirect ETS allowance costs that are passed on in the electricity price. The EU introduced an emission trading scheme as a tool to combat climate change. Member States can partially support EIUs to address the risk of ´carbon leakage´. This serves an environmental objective, since the aid aims to avoid an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions due to shifts of production outside the Union, in the absence of a binding international agreement on reduction of GHG emissions; (2) energy tax reductions or exemptions to facilitate a higher general tax level, and thereby contribute to a higher level of environmental protection. In principle, tax reductions can be granted up to the minimum level set out in the Energy Tax Directive, while for reductions below the minimum level a necessity and proportionality test needs to be carried out.[4] Decision of 23 July 2014 SA.38632 (2014/N) – Germany EEG 2014 – Reform of the Renewable energy law. As to the previous scheme implemented by Germany before the entry into force of EEAG, Germany appealed before the General Court, in case T-47/15, the decision of the Commission (Decision of 25 November 2014 SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users) largely approving the reductions to the surcharge granted to energy-intensive companies, but asking also Germany to recover a small portion of the aid granted in 2013 and 2014. The court case is ongoing.[5] Decision of 15 October 2014, State aid SA.39042 (2014/N) – Romania - RES support reduction for energy-intensive users.[6] Decision of 31 August 2015, State aid SA.42424 (2015/N) – Denmark – Reduced contribution to financing of RES support for energy-intensive users.[7] Decision of 14 December 2015, State aid SA.43657 (2015/N) – United Kingdom – Aid for indirect costs of renewable energy support in the UK.[8] Decision opening the formal investigation procedure of 27 March 2014, SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE.[9] The following may be considered to be compatible with the common market: aid to promote the economic development of areas with economic or social problems; aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State; aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions; aid to promote culture and heritage conservation; and such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council.[10] Decision 86/60/EEC of 14 December 1985 on aid which Land Rheinland-Pfalz of the Federal Republic of Germany has provided to an undertaking producing primary aluminium, OJ 1986 L 72, p.30.[11] Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 on State aid measures C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 36/B/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni, upheld by the Court in C-177/10, the appeal is now pending in Case C-604/14 P. Likewise, other two similar cases were also ruled by the General Court in T-291/11, T-308/11 (preferential electricity tariffs, Italy). The EU General Court ruled on appeals against two Commission decisions of November 2009 and February 2011, ordering Italy to recover incompatible state aid from certain energy intensive users. Alcoa brought an action for annulment of the 2009 decision and Eurallumina and Portovesme brought actions against the 2011 decision. The General Court dismissed all three appeals and entirely confirmed the Commission's findings. This confirms the findings of the same court in T-62/08 - ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:268.[12] Decision C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) of 8 March 2011, confirmed by the General Court in T-251/11.[13] See also the letter to the Commissioner signed by the four ministers of economic affairs from France, UK, Italy and Germany published on Mlex.[14] Decision C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) of 8 March 2011, confirmed by the General Court in T-251/11;decision opening the formal investigation procedure of 27 March 2014, SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE; decision of 25 November 2014 SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users. As mentioned Germany appealed before the General Court, in case T-47/15, this decision largely approving the reductions to the surcharge granted to energy-intensive companies, but asking also Germany to recover a small portion of the aid granted in 2013 and 2014. The court case is ongoing.[15] Section 3.7.2 aid in the form of reductions in the funding of support for energy from renewable sources.[16] From the strict legal point of view those type of acts (notice, guidelines, communications) do not have any binding effect on third parties, being soft law instruments, but bind the Commission which, if intends to depart from them, needs to have solid grounds.[17] There is at least one ongoing case (SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE) where the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure. See para. 248 of the EEAG which set forth that "Unlawful environmental aid or energy aid will be assessed in accordance with the rules in force on the date on which the aid was granted in accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid with the following exception: Unlawful aid in the form of reductions in funding support for energy from renewable sources will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. As from 1 January 2011, the adjustment plan foreseen in paragraph (194) shall also foresee a progressive application of the criteria of section 3.7.2 and of the own contribution foreseen in paragraph (197). Prior to that date, the Commission considers that all aid granted in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources can be declared compatible with the internal market".[18] For an example of progressive application of the EEAG rules to EIUs see SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users._{[19] Annex 3 to the EEAG.[20] Decision of the Commission authorising amendments to EEG 2014 including two other sectors to the list of EIUs benefiting from the reduction in the RES surcharge, SA.41381 2015/N – Germany - Relief from the EEG surcharge for companies in NACE sectors 25.50 and 25.61.}[21] As reported by M. Guenaire, P. Lienhardt, Revue de l’énergie, 2014, v. 65, n. 619, p. 221-226, the French authorities have insisted during negotiations on the EEAG for keeping the cap at 0,5% instead of 1% as put forward by Germany. See also P. Nicolaides, M. Kleis, A critical analysis of environmental tax reductions and generation adequacy provisions in the EEAG 2014-2020, EStal 4, 2014, p.  636-649.

1. Planning and the need for integrated policies

The European Union has approved numerous procedures and measures that require the introduction of policies or good practices relating to many of the aforementioned themes^[1]; however, what is missing is evidence of an overall strategy that underlines how local authorities must go beyond the segmentation of the actions to create a harmony between the various aspects, recognising that unless there are integrated choices that encompass the soil, the water and the air there can be no significant progress as regards the climate and hydrogeological instability.One could begin with an updating of the Covenant of Mayors^[2], launched by the Commission in January 2008.The Covenant, whose goals are the retrofitting of public and private buildings, clean mobility and encouraging new forms of behaviour, should today be integrated with the request for the introduction of urban redevelopment policies, with the reduction of soil consumption and the limitation, mitigation and offsetting of soil sealing and operative decisions to redevelop and ensure the safety of areas at hydrogeological risk.The Mayors of big cities must therefore develop integrated plans that go beyond sustainable energy. There is still time before 2030. The Municipalities that have approved the Action Plan (SEAP) can update it, those that haven’t yet approved it or signed up for it may still do so. The same Covenant, on other hand, provides for integration with urban and territorial development, a useful window for using this tool for policies which, as we have said, are more efficient and effective.

1. Urban regeneration

Territorial and environmental policies must therefore aim at a new urban development model that is less dissipative and more sustainable.The theme of urban regeneration^[3] is a crucial part of this new approach. Regeneration which, on one hand, is “extensive and widespread”, requiring the attention to be focused on places, on their physical and functional dimension, which must strengthen and expand the redevelopment of existing heritage, activating all of the levers of new forms of sustainability, including eco-efficiency, new forms of lighting, heating and air conditioning. On the other, this urban regeneration must be “intensive and concentrated”, closely connected with the major transformation of abandoned areas and those that must be redesigned because of the changing needs of large metropolitan areas (accessible living, greenery, services and work, new infrastructure).In this context, European policies and directives for renewable energies and greater energy efficiency, as well as associated domestic policies providing support (primarily of a physical nature)^[4] for the retrofitting of public and private buildings, are essential elements but once again not enough on their own.Regeneration, particularly with regard to existing heritage, requires the definition of innovative measures. In fact, it is important to come up with relocation measures (considering, for example, all those businesses set up in areas at high risk of flooding), using joint public and private instruments, which make temporary lodgings available to those that live in or use (such as schools or hospitals) the properties that must be redeveloped and regenerated in terms of both reducing energy consumption and the introduction of renewable energy sources for the production of water and heating. It is also essential to introduce and regulate forms of temporary usage (an increasingly common practice in the most modern European cities) which allow properties or parts of the territory to be used in order to prevent their abandonment and degradation, but also to understand, through people’s responses, which are the best functions to plan and implement (in some cases, due to the size factor, also over time and in stages). We must come up with forms of support that make it possible to put the high number of properties that are no longer usable back into circulation in order to meet social housing requirements or to recover accessible and green areas, particularly for those cities that have abused the territory intensively for many years.This does not mean not building but rather learning to build in a sustainable way, responding to real needs and restoring the environmental quality and efficiency of the territories.This may sound like good intentions but in reality the expansion of the metropolitan dimension already enables all big European cities, using the planning tools already provided and those waiting to be introduced, to design and launch projects, also experimental and large-scale in nature, which contain forms of negotiation between the public and private spheres. The latter can develop business, boosting the economy and employment, while the former can have a “positive impact” on the territory in terms of reducing energy consumption and energy savings, and therefore lower emissions, the quality of the environment, green and public spaces, services and, more generally, environmental sustainability. Indeed, regenerating means innovating, developing new constructions to replace those that are obsolete and no longer usable, but also recovering land in the case where a decision has been made to densify a particular area, reducing the occupation of the soil and freeing up the part that is left over^[5]. It is in this context that we must consider the relationship between the city and the countryside and the role that the latter can play as an integral part of the city’s identity and as a new development of a more modern farming approach, with a more urban connotation but equal financial capacity. This is also another form of development and therefore of wealth and work, but again with renewed focus on the territory.2. Decontamination of contaminated sites an integral part of urban regenerationThe decontamination of contaminated sites is a relevant theme in the area of regeneration. The cost of the measures and the complexity of the procedures make recovery processes particularly slow. Alternatively, these measures only become possible with the implementation of high-impact and high-density projects, often unconnected with the planning principles of the territories and their real growth requirements.Over the years, the principle of responsibility that stems from the concept of “the polluter should pay”^[6], a key and immutable principle, has not, however, been adapted to specific cases or the evolution of the local economic situation. Over time there has been no indication of the possible absence of accounting and administrative responsibility for direct measures by the local authorities, also with the exclusive goal of restoring the public accessibility of the territory, using European and national funds; no incentives or guarantees for non-responsible parties that want to carry out the decontamination have ever been established. The latter only now take action if the cost of the decontamination is recouped through the urban development or construction planned for the area.  Things would be different if forms of deduction were envisaged with obligations to make parts of the decontaminated land accessible or with the introduction of forms of territorial compensation.The impact of maintaining vast areas of contaminated land for many years must be evaluated in terms of the cost for the territory and the quality of the environment and health. It must be decided whether a contaminated site should be considered as already-consumed soil and if part of this soil must in any case be restored to its original state.In this area Europe has not moved beyond a 2006 proposal[7]; in fact, the protection of soil has never been associated with a single set of principles or regulations. The absence of uniform and common references between the various Member States negatively impacts on the equality of conditions among operators, limiting free competition.  [1] These numerous procedures include: the 2030 Framework for climate and energy adopted by the EU leaders in October 2014; Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and the European Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, which amends directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and revokes directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC; the European Commission initiative Covenant of Mayors Committed to local sustainable energy of 29 January 2008; Directive 2007/60/EC relating to the assessment and management of flood risks; Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing, European Commission guidelines 2012.[2] See footnote no. 1[3] There is no single definition of “urban regeneration". In any case, regeneration activities are alluded to in European regulations on the promotion of energy efficiency.[4] The most recent of these, in Italy, include the 2016 Stability Law which confirmed and partially extended the tax allowances for the energy redevelopment of buildings established by the 2015 Stability Law (Law no. 190 of 23 December 2014).[5] One interesting example of this method of collaboration between the public and private spheres took place in the Municipality of Milan between 2012 and 2014 and led to the demolition of a large building that was never completed and the recovery of a huge area of land to be used as farming and parkland. A project deemed worthy of attention as part of the “2012-2013 Landscape Award of the Council of Europe” and which won the Legambiente “sterminata bellezza 2014” (“boundless beauty 2014”) award in Italy.[6] Article 191, paragraph 2, subsection 1 of the TFEU states as follows: "Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”.[7] Commission communication of 22 September 2006: "Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" COM (2006) 231, Directive proposal of the European Parliament and Council that defines a framework for soil protection and amends directive 2004/35/EC.

• the meaning of the words: ‘reasonably reflect’;
• the use of information from other markets;
• the fair comparison between the normal value and the export

These will be addressed in turn.The meaning of the term: ‘reasonably reflect’Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreements defines dumping. It is when a product is in- troduced into the export market at a price less than the normal value in the set in the ordinary course of trade.Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows for the construction of the normal value when using the price in the country of origin is no appropriate. It provides:

1. When there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market or when, because of a particular market situation or the low vol- ume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the margin of dumping shall be determined by com- parison with a comparable price of the like product when exported to an appropri- ate third country, provided that this price is representative, or with the cost of pro- duction in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for administrative, sell- ing and general costs and for

 Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides (in part):For the purposes of paragraph 2 [which allows the construction of normal value], costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reason- ably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration.The question that the AB had to address was the correct interpretation of the phrase ‘and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sales of the prod- uct under consideration’.The EU argued that the phrase ‘reasonably reflect’ incorporated the idea that the cost in question must be ‘reasonable’ and not in some way distorted. The Panel and the AB rejected this approach and found that the adverb ‘reasonably’ modifies or clarifies the word ‘reflect’ and not the word ‘cost’.In doing so the AB rejected the argument that Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is imbued with a general standard of ‘reasonableness’ which endows the investigating authority with discretion, within the terms of Article 2.2.1.1 to disregard the records kept by the exporter or producer when the authority considers that the costs recorded in the accounts are not reasonable.The core of the AB’s reasoning is that Article 2.2 determines when normal value can be constructed (in other words when it is permissible not to use the price in the market of origin as the normal value). The construction of the normal value must arrive at a cost of production in the country of origin. Any interpretation of Article 2 or of Article2.2.1.1 must be seen in that light. The binding obligation is to arrive at a cost of produc- tion in the country of origin.There are a number of broad reflections on the AB’s approach.It is clear that the AB saw its role in determining whether or not the Panel had erred in its interpretation of the law, even if the AB did undertake its own analysis. However, that analysis was framed by the analysis of the Panel. On this basis the AB did not ad- dress the significance of the word ‘normally’ in the first line of Article 2.2.1.1. Nor does the AB address the definition of dumping in Article 2.1 which clearly provides that the normal value or the comparable price, must be set in the ‘ordinary course of trade’. The ‘ordinary course of trade’ test for determining the quality of the normal value was not addressed by the AB. A question that remains to be addressed it the na- ture of the ‘ordinary course of trade’ test and whether it is of a higher normative value that the detailed provisions of Article 2.2.1.1.That being said it seems reasonable to consider that a normal value that is not deter- mined on the basis of costs which result from the ordinary course of trade does not comply with the definition of dumping in Article 2.1. While the Panel and the AB may well have been correct in their finding that the word ‘reasonably’ applies to the verb ‘reflect’, this is to ignore the higher norm to ensure that the normal value is set in the ordinary course of trade.Paragraph 6.41 of the AB report. It is worth considering this paragraph as a whole:We do not subscribe to the European Union's reading of the Panel Report. We note that, to the Panel, the second condition in the first sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement requires a comparison between the costs in the producer's or ex- porter's records and the costs incurred by such producer or exporter. The Panel empha- sized that "the object of the comparison is to establish whether the records reasonably reflect the costs actually incurred, and not whether they reasonably reflect some hypo- thetical costs that might have been incurred under a different set of conditions or cir- cumstances and which the investigating authority considers more 'reasonable' than the costs actually incurred." In this connection, the Panel explained that its understanding   of this condition does not imply that "whatever is recorded in the records of the pro- ducer or exporter must be automatically accepted.” To the Panel, an investigating au- thority is "certainly free to examine the reliability and accuracy of the costs recorded in the records of the producers/exporters" to determine, in particular, whether all costs incurred are captured; whether the costs incurred have been over- or understated; and whether non-arms-length transactions or other practices affect the reliability of the reported costs. The Panel further stated that "Article 2.2.1.1 does not involve an exam- ination of the 'reasonableness' of the reported costs themselves, when the actual costs recorded in the records of the producer or exporter are otherwise found, within ac- ceptable limits, to be accurate and faithful." In light of these statements, we consider the Panel's interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 to be more nuanced than the European Union's argument suggests.In this paragraph the AB is signalling that even if there is no reasonableness test in Arti- cle 2.2 it is still possible to reject costs on the records (whether reasonable or not) where not to do so would be to use costs which were in someway distorted or would not allow for the proper construction of normal value in line with the ordinary course of trade norm. However, the AB has not given investigating authorities much guidance as to how to apply this opening.Information from other marketsArgentina argued that Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not allow any information to be used in determining the normal value other than the producers’ costs in the country of origin. The Panel found that neither Article 2.2 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement nor Article VI:1(b)(ii) of the GATT do not limit the sources of in- formation that may be used in establishing the cost of production. What is required is that the constructed normal value reflects the cost of production in the country of origin. The AB agreed with this proposition.The AB is probably right on this approach particularly in the light of Article 16.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement which provides that where the law admits of more than one interpretation a Panel should not second guess the interpretation of an investigat- ing authority so long as it rests on one of the possible interpretations.That being said the result of the AB’s reasoning is not clear. The second sentence of Ar- ticle 2.2.1.1 provides that that the authorities shall consider all available evidence on the proper allocation of costs. The AB considers that this sentence suggests that the ev- idence used to establish a cost can be different from the cost itself. It is not at all clear what this means.In paragraph 6.73 the AB finds:This suggests that, in such circumstances, the authority is not prohibited from relying on information other than that contained in the records kept by the exporter or pro- ducer, including in-country and out-of-country evidence. This does not mean that an investigating authority may simply substitute the costs from outside the country of origin for the costs of production on the country of origin.How should this finding be interpreted? In the subsequent section of the Report the AB examines whether the replacement of the domestic soya price with a price reflecting the international price was legitimate. The AB found that it was not.In conclusion the AB found that:When relying on out-of-country information to determine the “cost of production in the country of origin” under Article 2.2, an investigating authority has to ensure  that such information is used to arrive at the “cost of production in the country of origin”, and thus may require the investigating authority to adapt that information.The AB gives no guidance to the competent authority as to how to ‘adapt’ the infor- mation so as to determine a ‘cost’ for the purposes of determining the normal value. The approach of the AB in EU-Biodiesel is not significantly different from the approach in EC-Fasteners (21.5) even if the former deals with the costs used to construct normal value and the latter addresses adjustments to the normal value itself and the one was dealing with a market economy and the other with a non market economy methodology.In EU-Biodiesel, the AB is saying that there is the possibility of not using the costs on the accounts on the producers (even if they are reasonably reflected) and that infor- mation can be based on out-of-country costs but that the out-of-country information needs to be adjusted before being used to construct a value that reflects the cost of production in the country of origin.In EC-Fasteners (21.5) the AB found that adjustments to the normal value must be made if they are claimed and if they are valid. In that case adjustments were claimed for access to raw materials (import tax in India, none applicable in China), efficiency in electricity consumption, productivity per employee (see paragraph 5.236 of the Re- port). However, the AB did put a limit on the adjustments to be made. Adjustments should not be made where the effect of the adjustment would be to bring the cost back to the costs in China which were distorted in the first place. In other words, the adjustment should not be a means to defeat the purpose of using an analogue country to determine normal value.The question arises whether the AB trying to align the concept of adjustments whether the adjustment is to a cost or the resulting normal value and whether the methodology is for a market or a non-market economy? Is the AB anticipating the correct interpreta- tion of the consequences of changes in text of Article 15 of China’s Protocol of Accession?A fair comparisonIn paragraphs 6.47 and 6.48 the AB is very keen to draw a distinction between the manner in which the normal value must be constructed and the provisions of Article 2.4 on the fair comparison between the normal value and the export price. What the AB rejects is the idea that if a tax (in this case and export tax) can be taken in- to consideration within the scope of Article 2.4 it can also be taken into consideration within the terms of Article 2.2.1.1. This seems a reasonable approach. Article 2.2.1.1 is about constructing the normal value not about comparing that value with the export price for the purposes of ensuring that the comparison is fair. The AB returns to the issue Article 2.4 in section 6.1.1.3 of the Report. In this section of the Report the AB was addressing the argument raised by Argentina that the EU’s methodology for determining normal value (now found to be incompatible with Article 2.2.1.1) meant that the comparison was not fair.Here the AB strongly affirms the separation of the two provisions (Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.4) and holds that ‘The text of Article 2.4 makes clear that “[due] allowance shall be made in each case on its merits”.In paragraph 6.89 the AB states that as it has already found a WTO inconsistency there is no need to opine on Article 2.4.Given these findings, and notwithstanding our reservations about certain aspects of the Panel’s analysis under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, we do not consider it fruitful, in the particular circumstances of this dispute, to examine further whether the EU authorities also failed to conduct a “fair comparison” in comparing the constructed normal value to the export price.One wonders how the AB would have analysed Article 2.4 in the light of the circumstances of this case. The AB has ruled on ‘reasonably reflect’ but has left open the idea that the costs used to construct normal value need not necessarily be the costs on the account (even apparently these costs reasonably reflect the costs incurred). The AB has held that information from outside the country of origin can inform the analysis of the choice of costs to be used to construct the normal value. And the AB has refused to apply Article 2.4. Is the AB leaving this paragraph of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as a vehicle for addressing situations where there is a feature of the market of origin which is not present in the market of export and thus rendering the comparison not fair. In EC-Bed Linen, the AB when examining the provisions of ADA Article 2.4.2, argued:Article 2.4 sets forth a general obligation to make a "fair comparison" between export price and normal value. This is a general obligation that, in our view, informs all of Article 2….In US-anti-dumping measures on hot rolled steel from Japan, the AB interpreted Article 2.4 widely:Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that, where there are "differences" between export price and normal value, which affect the "comparability" of these prices, "[d]ue allowance shall be made" for those differences. The text of that provision gives certain examples of factors which may affect the comparability of prices: "differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteris- tics, and any other differences". However, Article 2.4 expressly requires that "allowanc- es" be made for "any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability" [emphasis added]. There are, therefore, no differences "affect[ing] price comparability" which are precluded, as such, from being the object of an "allowance".It is clear that competent authorities are allowed to make allowances for any factor that makes the comparison unfair. The overriding objective is to ensure fairness in the comparison between the two dumping comparators. Would the AB have made an al- lowance for the fact that the soya price was distorted in Argentina and not in the EU?ConclusionsThe ruling of the WTO Appellate Body in EU-Biodiesel will have a profound impact on how countries construct normal value in anti-dumping cases in the future. It will also colour the debate in the EU on the changes to normal value calculation methodologies consequent on the expiry of part of Article 15 of China’s protocol of accession to the WTO. The Appellate Body has closed the door in relation to current EU practice but ap- pears to have opened the way for different approaches. This is the second ruling from the AB in the course of this year in relation to adjust- ments to normal value. Both judgements seem to go in the same direction. Investigat- ing authorities must pay greater attention when adjusting the normal value itself and the prices and costs that can be used to construct the normal value. 

• Under Section 15 of its WTO Accession Protocol, China agreed to notify to the WTO any subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, granted or maintained in its territory, organised by specific product, including those subsidies defined in Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. The information provided was to be as specific as possible, following the requirements of the questionnaire on

• China also committed itself to eliminate all subsidy programmes falling within the scope of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement upon accession.

 These obligations have not been respected. Subsidies are not publicised despite China's commitment to report its subsidies to the WTO (as required of all WTO Members). There is grossly inadequate notification of subsidies provided by central and sub-central governments. Furthermore, China continues to provide prohibited export subsidies and subsidies favouring  the use of local products to its domestic industries. China also committed to make available to WTO Members, upon request, all laws, regulations and other measures pertaining to or affecting trade in goods, services, TRIPS or the control of foreign exchange before such measures are implemented or enforced. In emergency situations, laws, regulations and other measures are to be made available at the latest when they are implemented or enforced.Accurate and reliable information was to be provided to individuals and enterprises (in relation to the legislation to be published).Commitment No 3: State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to operate free of State influenceThe Government of China agreed not to influence, directly or indirectly, commercial decisions of SOEs and State-invested enterprises. In particular, under Section 6 of its Accession Protocol, and Article XVII GATT 1994, China agreed that these enterprises would make purchase and sales involving imports or exports based solely on commercial considerations such as price, quality, marketability and availability. However, decisions of State-owned enterprises are not taken on a commercial basis. The 12th Five-year Plan illustrates the GOC control over many industries and SOEs in terms of consolidation, location, access to raw materials, overseas investments, management of capacity and production as well as the market shares for key products. All of China trade-related laws, regulations and other measures were to be translated in one or more of the WTO languages (English, French and Spanish). However, China has not honoured these obligations either. There is no transparency in the elaboration, promulgation and implementation of laws and regulations by legislative, judiciary and administrative bodies. No body has been set up to undertake these obligatory translations. Moreover, SOEs do not need to be profitable because of government intervention to keep them afloat. SOEs  have  been  directed  to  build  up  huge  overcapacities  without  regard  to profitability. This has direct consequences on world markets as those overcapacities result in a flood of dumped exports to other countries.Commitment No 4: Non-discrimination in ProcurementExcept as otherwise provided for in the Protocol, foreign individuals and enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded  to other individuals and enterprises in respect of:

• the procurement of inputs and goods and services necessary for production and the conditions under which their goods are produced, marketed or sold, in the domestic market and for export;
• the prices and availability of goods and services supplied by national and sub-national authorities and public or state enterprises, in areas including transportation, energy, basic telecommunications, other utilities and factors of China also agreed to join the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) following accession. China has not joined the GPA, nor has China made a credible offer of activities that would be covered by the GPA commitments.

There is continuing discrimination against imports and foreign companies (FIEs) established in China. FIEs are discriminated in public procurement in various manners. SOEs and public institutions bar FIEs from bidding on public contracts in certain sectors such as the railway market. Regulations exclude FIEs due to ‘licensing requirements’ in the constructions, engineering and design sectors. FIEs are discriminated against on the basis of the country of origin of the supplier. There is no publicity for tenders. An further example of theses measures can be seen in the Steel sector. There is discrimination against foreign equipment and technology imports in the steel sector through the Steel and Iron Industry Development Policy. It encourages the use of local content by stressing the fact that financial support for steel projects using newly developed domestic equipment is provided by the  Government  of  China  and  should  be  favoured.  The  Policy  also  calls  for  the  use  of domestically manufactured steel-manufacturing products and domestic technologies.Commitment No 5: Non-discrimination in generalChina agreed to repeal or revise all laws, regulations and other measures inconsistent with the GATT Most Favoured Nation (‘MFN’) and National Treatment rules. China also confirmed that it would comply with the MFN rule with regard to all WTO members. China has adopted plans to boost innovation in high-technology sectors called the strategic emerging industries. These plans discriminate against foreign firms and their products. They  also encourage excessive involvement of the GOC in the market and technology transfer. In addition, VAT discriminates between domestic goods and imported goods.

Commitment No 6: Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

• China shall eliminate and cease to enforce trade and foreign exchange balancing requirements, local content and export or performance requirements made effective through laws, regulations or other
• China shall ensure that the distribution of import licences, quotas, TRQs, or any other means of approval for importation, the right of importation or investment by national and sub-national authorities, is not conditioned on: whether competing domestic suppliers of such products  exist;  or  performance  requirements  of  any  kind,  such  as  local  content, offsets, the transfer of technology, export performance or the conduct of R&D in China.

Foreign Invested Enterprises must transfer technology as a precondition for market access. This happens when participating in tenders through the Chinese partner requiring the FIE to transfer technology information before agreeing to form a joint-venture.Commitment No 10: Judicial reviewChina shall establish and maintain tribunals, contact points and procedures for the prompt review of all administrative actions relating to the implementation of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application referred to in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, and the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Such tribunals shall be impartial and independent of the agency entrusted with administrative enforcement and shall not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.The judicial system in China is not impartial and objective. In this regard, China has not acted in compliance with WTO commitments or China’s own Regulation.Commitments in relation to specific market sectors:Automotive sector:Requirements concerning local content, technology transfer and exports will  be  eliminated upon accession. The right to invest will not be conditioned upon the conduct of R&D. China industrial plans require new automobile and new plants to make substantial investments in R&D facilities in China.Banking sectorChina committed to give national treatment to foreign banks within five years following accession. Specific commitments were also made as regards electronic payment services. This commitment has not been implemented with regard to China-foreign joint banks and bank branches. Foreign credit card and business that issue or accept credit and debit cards face restrictions. A WTO case in relation to electronic payment services discrimination was brought and won by the United States.TelecommunicationsChina has committed to open the telecommunication market to foreign producers. The restrictions on basic telecomunications services, including the informal bans on new entry, the requirement to set up a joint-venture with a SOE and, very high capital requirements have prevented foreign suppliers from accessing the telecommunication market services.The film industryChina agreed to liberalise foreign film distribution and to allow a certain number of films to be imported.After accession, foreign producers were allowed to import less than the number of films committed. This has lead to a WTO dispute won by the United States.AgricultureChina shall upon accession administer TRQs on bulk agricultural commodities should in a transparent manner. China also agreed to be bound by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture which sets out commitments in relation to market access, domestic support and export subsidies. China committed to a cap for trade and production-distorting subsidies that is lower than the cap permitted for developing countries.The administration of these TRQs is impaired by lack of transparency.81 China has increased domestic subsidies and other support measures for the local agricultural sector.82 Sanitary and phytosanitary (‘SPS’) measures, not based on science as required continue to obstruct agricultural trade. Arbitrary inspection on imports constitute further obstacle. All proposed  SPS measures have not been first notified to the WTO members as required by WTO law.Retail industryChina maintains restraints on the retail of processed oil in breach of its WTO commitments.Legal servicesIn adopting measures to implement its legal services commitments, China has triggered WTO compliance issues since they impose an economic needs test and restrict the type of legal services that can be provided. The opening of offices is also characterised by lengthy delays.The fertilizer industryChinas agreed to implement a TRQ system that provides significant market access for three industrial products, including fertilizers.That TRQ system does not work smoothly due to transparency and administrative guidance concerns. Moreover, discriminatory tax and imports measures have been introduced. US  exports of fertilizers to China have declined sharply.Import and Export Regulations:China accepted to implement a Trade Defence framework in line with WTO rules. China agreed to substantially reduce or eliminate the vast majority of export restrictions. Transparency and procedural fairness requirements concerning anti-dumping investigations have not yet been implemented. Trade defence cases are also often initiated as a retaliatory tool. Numerous export restraints have been maintained that have led to two WTO cases, i.e.  raw materials and rare earth, defeats against the United States and Europe.     

• Building awareness of the potential of retail innovation for competitiveness, and of opportunities to boost retail innovation and to stimulate cooperation among stakeholders;
• Ensuring greater participation by retail firms of all sizes in European innovation projects;
• Identifying and stimulating investment in retail skills that increase potential for retail sector innovation;
• Ensuring that regulation work as a driver for retail sector

The Commission will examine the feasibility of setting up a dedicated database containing all EU and domestic food labelling rules and providing a simple way to identify labelling requirements per product.During the last two years the Commission has taken measures to ensure better market integration for card, internet and mobile payments through : a revision of the  Payment  Services Directive was adopted in 2015.51Finally, the Commission will strengthen cooperation with social partners to create conditions that make it possible to match skills with labour market needs in the retail sector, particularly  by identifying and anticipating skills needs through an EU Sectorial Skills Council, and by improving retailers training and reskilling policies.

• the abolition of the first sale rule for customs valuation and consequently the introduction of the last sale rule;
• the increase in dutiabilty of royalties and licence fees;
• the introduction of trademark royalties;
• all communications between customs authorities and economic operators must be electronic;
• goods removed from a customs warehouse and entered into free circulation in the EU, pursuant to sale to an EU customer, shall be valued based on the value of the transaction to the EU customer;
• introduction of mandatory guarantees for most special procedures;
• the potential need to have AEO status in order to benefit from certain customs simplifications and
• centralised clearance and self assessment expected to be introduced in 2020 but will only be available for companies that have AEO

Abolition of the first sale ruleThe first sale rule has been repealed and replaced by the last sale rule. Under the first sale rule companies could use the value of an earlier sale in the supply chain as the custom value, if it can be determined that the earlier sale took place for export to the EU. Under the old rules “the primary basis for the customs value of goods shall be the transaction value, that is the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory, adjusted, where  necessary”.35 The  customs value  of imported  goods will be  determined  at the  time of acceptance “of the customs declaration on the basis of the sale occurring immediately before   the goods are brought into the customs territory”.36 The UCC has introduced the last sale rule replacing the first sale rule in order to avoid that the final price results like the amount of the sales from the manufacturer for export to the EU. On the assumption that this change will have a crucial impact on the companies that currently use the first sale rule, the UCC has provided a so-called sunset clause which allows the companies to keep on using the first sale rule until 31 December 2017.Royalties, licence fees and trademark royaltiesUnder the UCC the royalties or licence fees are generally payable as a condition of sale, irrespective of the relationship between the manufacturer and third party licensor, and must be included in the customs value. According to UCC rules also the trademark royalties are dutiable without exemption and consequently the companies must pay trademark  royalties  in connection with imported goods into the EU pursuant the same rules as royalties and licence fees.Benefits related to holding of AEO statusCustoms Simplifications37 and Security and Safety38 are the only two types of authorization remaining in the Code. Under the current legislation, holding AEO status or meeting AEO  status criteria has become mandatory in order to be admitted to several benefits such as Centralised Clearance39 and Self Assessment.40 There are even other facilities which do not require to have the  AEO  status.  This  means  that  the  UCC  strongly  encourages  companies  to  become  AEO accredited  in  order  to  keep  or  maintain  specific  facilitations  and  simplified  procedures. Tobecome an AEO a trader must have:a. a solid record of compliance. The compliance track record requirement includes not only the compliance track record of import duties but also VAT, excise duties, corporate income tax and other taxes;b. a satisfactory system to manage commercial and transport-related data;c. adequate and technologic record-keeping capabilities. AEO holders need to have employees that can either demonstrate practical competences or hold professional qualifications;d. business solvency;e. mantain high safety standards.It should be noted that companies which have committed any serious infringement of customs lQ are not currently eligible for AEO.Introduction of mandatory guaranteeUnder the CCC the Customs Authorities had discretion to set and decide when a guarantee had to be released by the companies. The UCC has now introduced mandatory guaranteeS to be released by the companies in order to cover potential and actual debts. The Code is fully in force now for less than one month; therefore a preliminary balance if its effects on the market can not be drawn yet. However, it is already working well and is a clear improvement on the past.Some details on the legal provisionsOn 1 May 2016 the Union Custom Code41 (the “UCC” or the “Code”) – as consequence of the entrance into force of the Delegating Acts (the “DA”) and Implementing Act (the “IA”) – has become applicable in full repealing the Community Customs Code42 (the “CCC”) and replacing significant aspects of the existing law.The Delegated Act and Implementing Act together with the Transitional Delegated Act43 (the “TDA”) will operate until 2020 at the latest. The DA was adopted on 28 July 2015 as Commission Delegated Regulation No 2015/2446 and then has been modified twice. The UCC Delegated Act supplements certain non-essential elements of the UCC.The IA was adopted on 24 November 2015 as Commission Implementing Regulation No 2015/2447. The UCC Implementing Act intends to ensure the existence of uniform conditions  for the implementation of the UCC and a harmonised application of procedures by all Member States.The IA and the DA were published in the European Union’s Official Journal on December 29, 2015. The TDA was adopted on 17 December 2015 as Commission Delegated Regulation  No  2016/341. Annex 12 of the UCC Transitional Delegated Act has been corrected by a Commission Delegated Regulation was published in the Official Journal (L121) on 11 May 2016. The TDA addresses all the transitional phases up to full implementation in 2020.    

2. The injury margin is the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union 

3. The injury margin is calculated by comparing an exporting producer’s export price with the non-injurious price of the Union industry. The latter consists of the Union industry’s cost of production plus a reasonable profit

The first observation is that the statement in a draft Commission document that the injury margin is the margin adequate to remove injury does not make sense. The question is what  duty is adequate to remove injury. By referring to a margin, the Commission seeks to refer to the injury margin, something that is not provided for in law.The second observation is that, despite this apparently clear statement from the Commission, there is nothing in the basic anti-dumping regulation in relation to the calculation of the injury margin.The third observation is that a Commission working document referring to a margin, not provided for in the basic anti-dumping regulation, does not suddenly become law and cannot, in any case, constitute a deviation from, or a change, in law.Furthermore a statement from the Commission that the injury margin is adequate to remove injury cannot be as assessment of adequacy for the purposes of Article 9(4). The first sentences of Article 9(4) refer to the setting of the anti-dumping duty in any one investigation. As part of that investigation  a  specific assessment of the  adequacy  of the  level of the  duty  (to   remove injury) may be required.24The fourth observation is that the Commission calculates the margin as the difference between the export price and the Union industry cost of production plus a reasonable profit.This methodology does not comply with Union law. Article 3(2) of Regulation 1225/2009 provides that the “determination of injury shall be based on positive evidence and shall involve an objective examination of both: the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the Community market for like products.The methodology to determine an injury margin used by the Commission only assesses the impact of dumping on prices and does not assess the other injury factors. Most importantly it does not assess the impact of the volume of imports on the sales of the Union producers.Injury is something much more than a difference in price. It can include all the injury factors to be evaluated and, from a market perspective, loss of market share to dumped imports.The fact that an injury margin, as currently calculated by the Commission, is less than a dumping margin, cannot be a substitute for an assessment of the adequacy of the dumping margin and cannot be the basis of a duty adequate to remove injury.Conclusions on EU lawEU law does not mandate the imposition of a duty lower than the dumping margin. At most, EU provides that the Commission should assess whether the anti-dumping duty should be set at the level of the dumping margin or a lower level. This assessment must be made in relation to the dumping margin and not any other margin.The Commission does not, in current practice, carry out an assessment of the adequacy of a duty set at the level of the dumping margin to remove injury. The mechanical comparison of a dumping and an injury margin is not an assessment of adequacy.In any event, the methodology used by the Commission to determine a margin for injury does not capture the injury to the Union industry and cannot therefore be considered adequate to remove injury. The phrase Lesser Duty Rule in an incorrect synthesis of both EU and WTO law. To the extent that any procedure exists it should be called: the assessment of the adequacy of a duty set at the level of the dumping margin to remove injury or, in short, the Duty Adequacy Assessment.It cannot be argued that exporters in specific investigations have a legitimate expectation that an anti-dumping duty will be based on the lesser of the dumping and the injury margins. In Case 256/84 Koyo Seiko, paragraph 20, the Court of Justice ruled that traders do not have a  legitimate expectation in the use of a particular methodology for the calculation of an anti- dumping duty. In addition, in Branco, Case T-347/03, the General Court has ruled that there can be no legitimate expectations based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. Thus there is no legitimate expectation that an incorrect application of the law will continue to apply. 

• The promotion of economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity between Member States;
• The respect for the rich cultural and linguistic heritage and ensuring that Europe’s (and not just the Union’s) cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

And on the basis that the internal or single Union market promotes these values provides in Article 3(5) of the Treaty that:In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.There is a specific chapter on Culture in the other of the two Lisbon Treaties, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 167 provides:The Union shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. AndThe Union and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture, in particular the Council of Europe. AndThe Union shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaties, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures.It can be concluded that European culture must be at the core of the EU’s international relations. It could even be asked why it has taken so long for the Commission to publish a communication on the issue.Culture in EU external relations is one of the three pillars of the European Agenda for Culture (2007). Developing a strategic approach in this field has been a priority of the Council's Work Plans for Culture since 2011. A major step forward was made with the European Parliament's Preparatory Action "Culture in EU external relations" (2013-14), which highlighted the considerable potential for culture in Europe’s external relations and underlined that the European Union and its Member States stand to gain a great deal by better streamlining their cultural diplomacy.The EU strategy for international cultural relations will focus on three main objectives:i) Supporting culture as an engine for social and economic developmentThe economic benefits of cultural exchanges are too often overlooked. Global trade in creative products has more than doubled between 2004 and 2013, despite the global recession. Culture is a central element in the new economy driven by creativity, innovation, digital dimension and access to knowledge. Cultural and creative industries represent around 3% of global GDP and 30 million jobs. In the EU alone these industries account for more than 7 million jobs. In developing countries, UNESCO's Culture for Development Indicators (CDIS) show that culture contributes 1.5% to 5.7% of GDP in low and middle-income countries.The available data both in developing and developed countries indicate that the cultural sectors may account, depending on the country and scope, for 2% and 7% of GDP respectively, which is more than many other traditional industrial sectors.The EU strategy for international cultural relations should therefore also become a strategy for inclusive growth and job creation.ii) Promoting intercultural dialogue and the role of culture for peaceful inter-community relations Inter-cultural dialogue, including inter-religious dialogue, is a key tool in promoting the building of fair, peaceful and inclusive societies as well as the value of cultural diversity and respect for human rights. It establishes common ground and a favourable environment for further exchanges.Inter-cultural dialogue will be promoted through cooperation between cultural operators; peace-building cultural activities; exchanges between young people, students, researchers, scientists and alumni; as well as through cooperation on the protection of cultural heritage.iii) Reinforcing cooperation on cultural heritage Cultural heritage is an important manifestation of cultural diversity that needs to be protected. Rehabilitating and promoting cultural heritage attracts tourism and boosts economic growth. There are many opportunities for joint action with partner countries to develop sustainable strategies for heritage protection through training, skills development and knowledge transfer. The EU supports research and innovation for cultural heritage. The Commission will contribute to international efforts for the protection of cultural heritage sites and will consider a legislative proposal to regulate the import into the EU of cultural goods. It will also propose to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to organise a European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018.To help the EU implement the strategy and create synergies among all EU stakeholders (EU delegations, national cultural institutes and foundations, private and public enterprises, civil society), a Cultural Diplomacy Platform was set up in February 2016, focusing on strategic countries. Operated by a consortium of Member States' Cultural Institutes and other partners, the Platform will deliver policy advice, facilitate networking, carry out activities with cultural stakeholders and develop training programmes for cultural leadership.On issue not addressed by the Communication is the protection of Geographical Indications. The first recital to Regulation 1151/2012 on EU Quality Products makes clear that GIs are part of the EU’s cultural and gastronomic heritage. Thus the protection of GIs must form a basic part of all of the EU international relations. This refers not only to trade agreements like the TTIP but also all other interchanges that the EU has with third countries. In relation to TTIP it means that the EU cannot back away from strong protection for EU GIs as an essential part of the deal.

1. Simple electronic signatures, which are “data in electronic form which is attached to or logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the signatory to sign.” [1] This could be something as a photo of a signature.
2. Advanced electronic signatures, which are uniquely linked to the signatory, capable of identifying the signatory. Moreover this type of signature is created using electronic signature creation data that a signatory can, with a high level of confidence^[2], use under his/her sole control and it is linked to the data signed in such a way that any subsequent change in the data is detectable^[3].
3. Qualified electronic signatures, which are “advanced electronic signatures that are created by a qualified electronic signature creation device, and based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures.” ^[4]

eIDAS sets out minimum requirements^[5] for what constitutes a “qualified electronic signature creation device”; for example, the confidentiality of the electronic signature creation data used for creating the electronic signature should be reasonably assured.In addition, the electronic signature creation data used for creating an electronic signature, with reasonable assurance, should be protected against forgery, and must not be derived from another source.Moreover, a qualified trust service provider may only generate electronic signature creation data on behalf of the signatory. Certification service providers (as they are currently identified in the Directive) will be replaced by “trust service providers” (TSPs), defined in eIDAS as entities that provide one or more trust services[6]. Such services include the creation, verification and validation of electronic signatures and seals, and the preservation of such electronic signatures and seals. Member States will be required to designate a supervisory body for supervising TSPs and ensuring that TSPs comply with their obligations under eIDAS. Under eIDAS, all TSPs will be liable for damage caused intentionally or negligently due to a failure to comply with their obligations under eIDAS. eIDAS also sets out the details^[7] of what a “qualified certificate for electronic signatures” should contain, such as: (i) the name of the signatory; (ii) details of the beginning and end of the certificate’s period of validity; and (iii) the advanced electronic signature of the issuing qualified trust service provider.Under eIDAS, an electronic signature (whether qualified or otherwise) must not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings just because it is electronic in nature or fails to meet the requirements for a qualified electronic signature.^[8]A qualified electronic signature is automatically granted the equivalent status of a handwritten signature^[9]. Furthermore, a qualified electronic signature based on a qualified certificate issued in one Member State must be recognised as a qualified electronic signature in all other Member States^[10]. The scope of eIDAS expressly includes electronic signatures, electronic seals, electronic time stamps, and electronic registered delivery services and there are specific provisions which govern the recognition of each authentication method. However, it is up to each Member State to define what type of signature is required for a particular contract.In conclusion, eIDAS will provide for usable, trustworthy and convenient signatures for citizens and businesses in e-procurement, e-invoicing, signing contracts online, tax online, e-health, online banking and much more across all the Member States.  [1]         Article 3(10) of eIDAS[2]         We note that eIDAS has a revised definition for advanced electronic signatures, so that as of July 2016, the signatory must be able to use the data under his/her sole control with “a high level of confidence” (this replaces the Directive’s absolute requirement to maintain sole control).^[3]                 Article 26 of eIDAS^[4]                 Article 3(12) of eIDAS^[5]         Annex II of eIDAS[6]         Article 3(19) of eIDAS^[7]         Annex I of eIDAS^[8]         Article 25(1) of eIDAS^[9]         Article 25(2) of eIDAS^[10]        Article 25(3) of eIDAS

• the operating risk is the risk, transferred to the concessionaire, in exploiting the works or services encompassing demand or supply risk or both; it refers to the possibility that the variations of costs and revenues of the concession influence economic and financial balance;
• the concessionaire assumes operating risk where, under normal operating conditions, it is not guaranteed to recoup the investments made or the costs incurred;
• the part of the risk transferred to the concessionaire shall involve real exposure to market fluctuations, such that any potential estimated loss incurred by the concessionaire shall not be merely nominal or negligible.

The Code, in line with the Directive, defines the components of the operating risk for a correct interpretation of contracts:

• construction risk, is the risk related to delivery delays, cost increases, technical problems related to the works and failure to complete them; it is essentially the same risk as that of the contractor;
• availability risk, is the risk linked to the concessionaire's ability to deliver the agreed upon contractual services both in volume and expected standards of quality;
• demand risk, connected to varying volumes of demand for the service that the concessionaire must satisfy, to reduced demand and, therefore, cash flows.

Economic and Financial balance and correct risk allocationThe Code stressed the financial viability of the operation, which constitutes a requirement for the success of the specific contractual model. Correct risk allocation results in economic and financial balance. According to the definition contained in the Code (article 3 lett. fff), economic and financial balance requires two simultaneous elements consisting of affordability and financial viability, where:

• affordability indicates the capacity of the project to create value during the validity of the contract and to generate profits adequate to the invested capital;
• financial viability indicates the capacity of the project to generate cash flow sufficient to guarantee loan repayment.

With the sole purpose of reaching economic and financial balance during tender procedures, the payment of a partial price by the contracting authority can be envisioned (article 165, comma 2):

• as a contribution;
• in the case of a construction tender, the contribution can be rights to the usage of real estate, within the capacities of the contracting authority and whose usage is instrumental and technically necessary for the construction works in question;
• the transfer of real estate property rights.

The price paid by the contracting authority cannot, however, be higher than 30% of the overall cost of the investment, including financial costs.For the purposes of the price charged to the contracting authority, all advantages to the contracting authority, besides monetary compensation are to be considered, such as the value of public guarantees or other financing mechanisms.The duration of the concessionsThe duration of the concessions is determined in the tender offer on the basis of the works or services requested from the contractor and on the basis of the value and complexity of the concession itself (article 168, comma 1). In practical terms, the duration of the contract is based on objective economic criteria and is directly proportional to the necessity to recover the investment sustained by the contracting authority, which result from the financial plan (article 168, comma 2).The duration of the concession provided for in the plan or, if shorter, in the contract is mandatory and cannot be increased even if circumstances impacting financial stability arise. This approach is based on the general interest in protecting competition in a free market, which mitigates against unreasonably long contracts. In addition, unreasonably long concessions can constitute an unacceptable obstacle to free movement of services and to freedom of establishment.Modification of concession contractsAs a general principle of the Code (article 175) a new tender procedure is required where there are material changes to the initial concession. A modification shall be considered to be substantial in the case of substantial changes that significantly alter the essential elements of the initial contract (article 175, par. 1).In any event, without prejudice to article 175, par. 1, a modification shall be considered to be substantial where one or more of the following conditions are met:

• the modification introduces conditions which, had they been part of the initial tender procedure, would have allowed for the admission of applicants other than those initially selected or would have attracted additional participants in the tender procedure or for the acceptance of a tender other than that originally accepted;
• the modification changes the economic balance of the concession in favour of the concessionaire in a manner which was not provided for the initial concession;
• the modification extends the scope of the concession;
• where a new concessionaire replaces the one to which the concession was initially awarded, in cases other than those for which such replacement is specifically permitted.

However, the Code provides some specific cases in which a modification to the initial contract is permitted without a new tender procedure. The possibility of technical and financial changes to concessions is consistent with the nature of concession contracts, since concessions are usually long-term contracts that are often subject to changing circumstances. In that respect Directive 2014/23/UE recognizes the need for a certain flexibility to adapt the concession to the supervening circumstances without a new tender procedure.The Code states that concession contracts may be modified without a new tender procedure in the following cases:

• where the modifications, irrespective of its monetary value, have been provided for in the initial concession contract, on condition that:
  • they shall not provide for modifications or options that would alter the scope of the concession;
  • they do not result in an extension of the duration of the concession;
• for additional works and services provided by the original concessionaire that were not included in the initial concession, where a change of concessionaire is not viable due to economic or technical reasons;
• the modification is required due the following factors:
  • the modification is requested by circumstances which a diligent contracting entity was not in a position to foresee;
  • the modification does not alter the scope of the concession;
• where a new concessionaire replaces the one to which the contracting authority had initially awarded the concession as a consequence of either:
  • the application of a review clause of the concession contained in the tender documents;
  • the complete or partial taking over of the position of the initial concessionaire, following corporate restructuring, including takeovers, mergers, acquisitions or insolvency, provided that (a) the new economic operator fulfils the criteria for qualitative selection initially established and (b) that this does not entail other substantial modifications to the contract, notwithstanding the need of any prior authorizations of the authority, where required by relevant legislation;
• where the modifications, irrespective of their value, are not substantial.

For concession contracts below a certain threshold value modifications are also permitted without a new tender procedure, without any need to verify the substantial nature of the modifications (article 175, par. 4 and 5). In particular, where the value of the modifications is below both of the following values:

• the threshold of euro 5,225,000;
• 10% of the value of the initial concession.

In conclusion, concession contracts can be modified without a new tender procedure only in cases specifically provided for in the Code. In other cases a new procedure in line with the principles of equal treatment and transparency is necessary.Termination, revocation and withdrawal of concession contractsThe Code contains a single provision governing termination, revocation and withdrawal of concession contracts (article 176).The termination of the concession contracts is related to the self-defence power provided by the public law, which entitles the contracting authorities (public entities) to annul or revoke the awarding of contract (article 176, par. 1). Termination of the concession contracts occurs in the following cases:

• the concessionaire should have been excluded from the tender procedure because he did not meet the general admission requirements (article 80);
• unlawfulness of the award procedure as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with article 258 TFUE;
• unlawful modifications to the concession contract for breach of obligations to put in place a new tender procedure.

In case of the revocation by the contracting authority for unlawfulness of the tender procedure for not attributable to the concessionaire, the Code grants the concessionaire the right to be compensated by the contracting authority (article 176, par. 3).Both for revocation and withdrawal for breach, the Code provides for the right of the concessionaire to be granted a compensation (article 176, para. 4), consisting in:

• the value of the works, as well as the additional charges or, if the work has not yet be completed, the costs actually incurred by the concessionaire;
• the penalties and other costs incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the termination/revocation;
• an indemnity in respect to loss of earnings compensation equal to 10% of the value of works still to be carried out which is equal to the present value of the part of the service of the monetary costs of the operations envisaged in the business plan attached to the concession contract.

In the different case of revocation for reasons attributable to the concessionaire, he is responsible pursuant to the general principles set forth in the Civil Code governing breach of contract.Moreover, in this case the Code provides for step-in by another economic operator designated by the financers (article 176, par. 8). Subject to the consent of the contracting authority, this economic operator replaces the concessionaire and carries on the concession. However, unlike the provisions of the earlier Code, the replacement of the concessionaire shall be limited to the time necessary for carrying out a new tender procedure.The transitional regime concerning the concession contracts already assigned without competition or with the project financing formulaWith regard to concession contract still in progress and not assigned through a project finance formula, or assigned without a public tender procedure, the Code provides for competition. In this sense, the Code (article. 182) provides the concessionaire’s obligation to:

• assignment of a share of the works, services or supplies equal to 80% through a public tender procedure;
• proceed to the realization of the remaining 20% by means of in-house companies, or entrusting its execution to third parties through a simplified public tender procedure (invitation to five competitors).

The Anti-bribery Authority (ANAC – Autorità Nazionale Anti Corruzione) shall verify compliance with this rule.  

• Could increase costs for users and consumers;
• Change the balance of competing interests between affected industries;
• Impose unnecessary costs on consumers;
• Create a risk of retaliation because of higher tariffs.

These are all valid arguments. The problem is that, in trade defence law, these are not injury or even lesser duty arguments. These are Union Interest arguments and, in the course of trade defence investigations, are only assessed in relation to Union Interest and not in relation to the calculation of a duty. The UK is mixing up arguments.Article 21 of the EU Anti-Dumping Regulation allows an evaluation of whether the EU should take measures taking into consideration various interests taken as a whole including the interests of the domestic industry and users and consumers.The arguments that the UK raises in relation to the LDR refer to factors that must be taken into consideration when evaluating the appropriateness of measures under the Union Interest test. They are not factors to be taken into consideration when determining the possible duty that could be imposed.EU anti-dumping law sets out clear technical rules in relation to the calculation of dumping margins. There is a long established, but questionable, practice in relation to the calculation of injury margins. And, in relation to the duty to be imposed on the basis of these margins, Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation provides:The amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established but it should be less that the margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove injury to the Community industry. To the extent that Article 9(4) lays down a lesser duty ‘rule’ (see further), the rule is in relation to the Union industry only, and does not refer to users and consumers. The interests of users and consumers are to be taken into account within the terms of Article 21.It can be concluded therefore that the arguments that the UK uses to justify the continued use of a lesser duty ‘rule’ (balancing the needs of users and consumers), find no place in Article 9(4) and are therefore legally irrelevant. They must be excluded in any evaluation of what duty is appropriate in any investigation.Article 9(4) addresses the level of the anti-dumping duty and whether, should that duty be based on the dumping margin, it is adequate to remove injury to the Union industry. It is an assessment that simply does not pertain to the interests of users and consumers. The UK is arguing chalk and cheese. It has gotten itself in a muddle.Is there a lesser duty ‘rule’ at all? The UK refers to a Lesser Duty Rule. Is that a correct interpretation of Article 9(4)? Reading the text it is not so clear. There is no ‘rule’. There is no rule in two senses:Firstly, there can be no ‘rule’ when what the law provides is ‘should’ and not ‘shall’. The duty shall not exceed the dumping margin, but should be less where a lesser duty would be adequate to remove injury to the Union industry. Considering this to provide for a ‘rule’ is a simple misreading of the text (even if the Commission misreads it as well).Secondly, there can be no ‘rule’ requiring fixing of the duty at the lower of the dumping and injury margins. That is not what the text says. The text requires an evaluation of whether the dumping margin is adequate to remove injury. An evaluation of adequacy to remove injury might find that it is necessary to set the duty at the level of the dumping margin, or that a higher duty is necessary to remove injury (nothing can be done in this case), or that a lower duty is enough. There is no ‘rule’ as to the outcome.ConclusionsThe UK non-paper is a useful basis for a debate on the Lesser Duty Rule because it forces an examination of what is provided in EU law and the separation between the evaluation of the Union Interest test and the level of the duty. The situation of users and consumers is not relevant for the fixing of the level of the duty and is not relevant in the application of the so-called Lesser Duty ‘Rule’.The UK arguments are both legally and practically irrelevant.  

• Under Section 15 of its WTO Accession Protocol, China agreed to notify to the WTO any subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, granted or maintained in its territory, organised by specific product, including those subsidies defined in Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. The information provided was to be as specific as possible, following the requirements of the questionnaire on
• China also committed itself to eliminate all subsidy programmes falling within the scope of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement upon 11 Protocol of Accession, Section 10 as well as Sections 1 and 3 of Part 1. The subsidies covered by Article 3 of the SCM Agreement include: (a) sub- sidies contingent upon export performance and (b) subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods.

These obligations have not been respected. Subsidies are not publicised despite China's commitment to report its subsidies to the WTO (as required of all WTO Members). There is grossly inadequate notification of subsidies provided by central and sub-central governments.2 Furthermore, China continues to provide prohibited export subsidies and subsidies favouring  the use of local products to its domestic industries.3China also committed to make available to WTO Members, upon request, all laws, regulations and other measures pertaining to or affecting trade in goods, services, TRIPS or the control of foreign exchange before such measures are implemented or enforced. In emergency situations, laws, regulations and other measures are to be made available at the latest when they are implemented or enforced.Accurate and reliable information was to be provided to individuals and enterprises (in relation to the legislation to be published). 4All of China trade-related laws, regulations and other measures were to be translated in one or more of the WTO languages (English, French and Spanish).However, China has not honoured these obligations either. There is no transparency in the elaboration, promulgation and implementation of laws and regulations by legislative, judiciary and administrative bodies. 5 No body has been set up to undertake these  obligatory translations.6Commitment No 3: State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to operate free of State influenceThe Government of China agreed not to influence, directly or indirectly, commercial decisions of SOEs and State-invested enterprises. In particular, under Section 6 of its Accession Protocol, and Article XVII GATT 1994, China agreed that these enterprises would make purchase and sales involving imports or exports based solely on commercial considerations such as price, quality, marketability and availability.7However, decisions of State-owned enterprises are not taken on a commercial basis. The 12th Five-year Plan illustrates the GOC control over many industries and SOEs in terms of consolidation, location, access to raw materials, overseas investments, management of capacity and production as well as the market shares for key products.82 2014 Report to Congress on China’s WTO compliance, p. 11, 58.Moreover, SOEs do not need to be profitable because of government intervention to keep them afloat.9  SOEs have been directed to build up huge overcapacities without regard to profitability.This has direct consequences on world markets as those overcapacities result in a flood of dumped exports to other countries. 

Commitment No 4: Non-discrimination in Procurement

• the procurement of inputs and goods and services necessary for production and the conditions under which their goods are produced, marketed or sold, in the domestic market and for export;
• the prices and availability of goods and services supplied by national and sub-national authorities and public or state enterprises, in areas including transportation, energy, basic telecommunications, other utilities and factors of China also agreed to join the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) following accession. China has not joined the GPA, nor has China made a credible offer of activities that would be covered by the GPA commitments.11

There is continuing discrimination against imports and foreign companies (FIEs) established in China. FIEs are discriminated in public procurement in various manners. SOEs and public institutions bar FIEs from bidding on public contracts in certain sectors such as the railway market.   Regulations   exclude   FIEs   due   to   ‘licensing   requirements’   in   the constructions, engineering and design sectors. FIEs are discriminated against on the basis of the country of origin of the supplier. There is no publicity for tenders.12An further example of theses measures can be seen in the Steel sector. There is discrimination against foreign equipment and technology imports in the steel sector through the Steel and Iron Industry Development Policy. It encourages the use of local content by stressing the fact that financial support for steel projects using newly developed domestic equipment is provided by the Government of China and should be favoured. The Policy also calls for the use of domestically manufactured steel manufacturing products and domestic technologies.13Commitment No 5: Non-discrimination in generalChina agreed to repeal or revise all laws, regulations and other measures inconsistent with the GATT Most Favoured Nation (‘MFN’) and National Treatment rules. China also confirmed that it would comply with the MFN rule with regard to all WTO members. China has adopted plans to boost innovation in high-technology sectors called the strategic emerging industries. These plans discriminate against foreign firms and their products. They  also encourage excessive involvement of the GOC in the market and technology transfer.In addition, VAT discriminates between domestic goods and imported goods.14Commitment No 6: Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)China shall, upon accession, bring into conformity with the TBT Agreement all technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures.15 China has not complied with the TBT Agreement leading to obstacles for foreign companies to access the local market. Certain mandatory industry standards and regulations requiring conformity assessment procedures have not been notified to the WTO while other technical regulations do not fulfill the legitimate objectives defined in the TBT Agreement. China appears to use in-country testing for a range of products which does not conform with international practice that tend to accept foreign tests result and certifications. China continues the development of unique  national standards as a  means to  protect domestic companies from competing foreign technology and standards.16Commitment No 7: Intellectual PropertyBy accepting the TRIPS agreement, China agreed to comply with generally accepted international norms to protect and enforce IPRs held by foreign companies and individuals.17 IPRs are not properly registered and protected.18 Issues in relation to trade secrets, copyright protection, software piracy, counterfeiting, uncertain and complex enforcement environment due to lack of transparency in the process, procedural obstacles to civil enforcement, local protectionism and, corruption.Commitment No 8: Market accessChina committed to the removal of trade barriers and the opening of the domestic market to foreign companies and their exports in every sector as from the first day of accession.19 Market Access Barriers remain. Many barriers to foreign direct investment through the prohibition or restriction to invest in certain sectors, burdensome pre-approval processes for investment (that include registering producers before importation), local content and joint- venture requirements. National treatment not being extended to Foreign Invested Enterprises (‘FIEs’). A ban prohibiting the control by foreign investors of steel companies is in force since 2005.20 Similarly, the mining sector is closed to foreign investment.2Commitment No 9: Non-tariff measures

• China shall eliminate and cease to enforce trade and foreign exchange balancing requirements, local content and export or performance requirements made effective through laws, regulations or other
• China shall ensure that the distribution of import licences, quotas, TRQs, or any other means of approval for importation, the right of importation or investment by national and sub-national authorities, is not conditioned on: whether competing domestic suppliers of such products  exist;  or  performance  requirements  of  any  kind,  such  as  local  content, offsets, the transfer of technology, export performance or the conduct of R&D in China.22

Foreign Invested Enterprises must transfer technology as a precondition for market access. This happens when participating in tenders through the Chinese partner requiring the FIE to transfer technology information before agreeing to form a joint-venture.23Commitment No 10: Judicial reviewChina shall establish and maintain tribunals, contact points and procedures for the prompt review of all administrative actions relating to the implementation of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application referred to in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, and the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Such tribunals shall be impartial and independent of the agency entrusted with administrative enforcement and shall not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.24The judicial system in China is not impartial and objective. In this regard, China has not acted in compliance with WTO commitments or China’s own Regulation.25Commitments in relation to specific market sectorsAutomotive sector:Requirements concerning local content, technology transfer and exports will  be  eliminated upon accession. The right to invest will not be conditioned upon the conduct of R&D. China industrial plans require new automobile and new plants to make substantial investments in R&D facilities in China.26

Banking sector

• Reducing pressure on the environment: a circular economy would significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through better waste management^[3]and reducing use of resources (such as energy, water, land and materials) in manufacturing, with positive impacts on climate. Large-scale reuse of raw materials could help to reduce landscape and habitat disruption as well as marine littering, which would in turn help to limit biodiversity loss.
• Enhancing security of supply of raw materials: a circular economy would mitigate risks associated with the supply of raw materials, such as price volatility, availability, and import dependency. According to Eurostat Data, EU currently imports, in raw materials equivalents, about half of the resources it consumes.
• Increasing competitiveness: a circular economy could bring savings to businesses and consumers through improved resources efficiency. A 2015 Ellen MacArthur Foudation Report estimates that by 2030, a shift towards a circular economy could reduce net resource spending in the EU by 600 billion Euros annually, bringing total benefits estimated at 1.8 trillion Euros per year once multiplier effects are accounted for. Additionally, research suggests that stricter environmental legislation can provide a competitive advantage to businesses.
• Innovation: a circular economy could trigger a large innovation drive across sectors of the economy because of the need to redesign materials and products for circular use. The McKinsey Company consultancy highlights shows that this would apply even in sectors not normally considered as innovative, such as  the carpet industry.
• Growth and Jobs: a circular economy could strengthen growth and create new jobs. It is estimated that the transition would increase GDP by 1 to 7 percentage points by 2030, depending on whether a higher pace of technological change is taken into account, ^[4] and that it would have an overall positive impact on employment, although jobs in specific sectors could also be threatened^[5]. 

The European Commission estimated that the adoption of the legislatives proposals contained in the 2015 circular economy package would create over 180.000 indirect jobs in the EU by 2030 (2014 proposals) and 170.000 direct jobs by 2035 (2015 proposals). In addition, the Commission estimated in 2014 that increasing resource  productivity by 30% could deliver over 2 million additional jobs in the EU by 2030 and indicated in 2015 that a circular economy could create 580.000 jobs.^[6]Among the main measures put forward in the frame of the 2015  circular economy package we find the four Waste legislative proposals of directives^[7] . It seems to be important to underline the following points:

• setting new waste management targets to be met in 2030, in particular increasing the share of municipal waste prepared for reuse and recycling to 65%, increasing the share of packaging waste prepared for reuse and recycling to 75% ( with specific targets for various materials used in packaging) and gradually limiting municipal waste ladfill to 10%;
• introducing an early warning system for monitoring compliance with targets;
• setting minimum requirements for extended producer responsibilirty schemes and differentiating the contribution paid by producers on the basis of the costs necessary to treat their products at the end of their life ;
• promoting prevention (including for food waste) and reuse;
• streamling provisions on by-products and end-of-waste status (the stage at the end of the waste treatment process when materials are no longer considered waste, provided they meet certain conditions);
• aligning definitions, calculation methods for targets, reporting obligations and provisions on delegated and implementing acts.

In other terms, the legislative proposals on waste, adopted toghether with this Action Plan, include long-term targets to reduce landfilling and to increase preparation for reuse and recycling of key waste streams such as municipal waste and packaging waste. The targets should lead Member States gradually to converge on best-practice levels and encourage the requisite investment ion waste management. Further measures are proposed to make implementation clear and simple, promote economic incentives and improve extended producer responsibility schemes. The expected 2016 legislative procedural iter in the European Parliament for this Package is scheduled as follows :

• ENVI Commission vote for october;
• ITRE Commission vote for november.

 [1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Closing the loop –An Action Plan for the Circular Economy COM(2015)614 final[2] These four proposals relate to : 1. The Waste framework Directive (2008/98/EC); 2. The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC); 3. The Packaging Waste Directive (1994/62/EC); 4. The Directives on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC), on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and acumulators (2006/66/EC9, and on waste electrical and electronic equipment (2012/19/EU).[3] The European Commission estimated that the adoption of the legislative proposals contained  in 2015 circular economy package would avoid over 600 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions  by 2035 ( on average 30 million tonnes per year ). It is also indicated that a circular economy could reduce EU CO2 equivalnt emissions by 450 million tonnes per year. For comparison, 4477 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent were emitted in the EU in 2013. See also “The potential contribution of waste management to a Low Carbon Economy”, Eunomia, 2015.[4] The Commission estimated in 2014 that a shift to a circular ecoomy would deliver a 0.8% GDP increase by 2030.[5] The2015 Ellen MacArthur Foundation Report and  The McKinsey Company consultancy hightlights, 2015 – , in European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing january 2016.[6] A 2015 report by Green Alliance, a UK think tank, estimated that an ambitious circular economy strategy could bring-in Italy, Poland and Germany alone -270.000 unemployed people back into work.[7] Proposal for a Directive of teh European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste – COM(2015) 595 final; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlaiment and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste – COM(2015) 596 final ; Proposal for a Direcitve of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste – COM(2015) 594 final; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment-COM(2015) 593 final

1. being incorporated as a joint-stock company (S.p.A.), a limited liability company (S.r.l.) or a partnership limited by shares (S.a.p.a.), including cooperatives;
2. employing fewer than 250 persons and having an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million.

Moreover, in order to be considered innovative, SMEs must meet the following requirements:

• having their headquarters in Italy or in another EU country, but at least one production site or branch in Italy;
• having their last accounts certified by an auditor or by an auditing firm registered in the relevant register. This point requires some consideration.

The financial statements of companies incorporated as a S.p.A. and S.r.l. (who are required to appoint a supervisory body or an auditor) are statutorily subject to audit. For those S.r.l.s who are not required to appoint a supervisory body or an auditor – and, therefore, to have an audit –, the question arises of how the requirement at issue can be satisfied.The Italian Ministry of Economic Development has clarified that, for companies who are not obliged to have their accounts audited, the requirement in question is deemed met when their accounts are audited based on a voluntary assignment by the administrative body, even if given after their approval, but in any event before filing the application for registration.

• not having their shares listed in a regulated market;
• not being registered as an innovative start-up or a certified incubator in the special section of the Italian Company’s Register;
• not distributing profits;

In addition to the above, SMEs must be of an innovative character, which means they must meet at least two of the following requirements:

• at least 3% of the higher value between their expenses and turnover must be allocated to research and development;
• at least 1/5 of their total workforce must be PhD students, PhD holders or research fellows; alternatively, 1/3 of their total workforce must hold a Master’s degree;
• they must be the owner, depositary or licensee of a registered patent (industrial property) or the owner of a registered original computer programme.

Innovative SMEs must register in the respective special sections of the Italian Companies’ Register created ad hoc at the Chambers of Commerce. Decree Law 3/2015 provides for significant benefits in favour of innovative SMEs from a corporate and tax point of view as well as simplified access to the “Fondo di Garanzia” and support to the process of internationalisation. More specifically, such benefits are:

1. Flexible corporate management: the most significant derogations from company law rules apply to innovative SMEs incorporated as limited liability companies (S.r.l.). They are allowed to: (i) issue classes of shares with special rights (e.g. classes of shares that do not confer voting rights or that confer voting rights which are not proportional to the interest held); (ii) carry out transactions on treasury shares; (iii) issue participating financial instruments (quasi-equity instruments); (iv) offer equity shares to the public. Many of such measures imply a radical change in the financial structure of limited liability companies (S.r.l.), making them more similar in their structure to joint stock companies (S.p.A.).
2. Exemption from the regime applying to companies suffering from systematic losses: during their years of operation, high-risk innovative enterprises may incur losses. If the available capital is insufficient, such losses can have a direct impact on their share capital. Where losses result in the share capital being reduced by over 1/3, the shareholders’ meeting shall reduce the capital proportionally to the losses incurred by the following financial year. A 12-month extension is granted to innovative SMEs, during the term of which their capital can be reduced proportionally to the losses incurred. While ordinary companies are required to reduce their capital by the following financial year, SMEs are allowed to do so by up to two financial years after suffering losses.
3. Tax incentives for corporate and private investments in Innovative SMEs who have operated in the market for no more than 7 years made by individuals or legal entities. Such incentives apply both in case of direct investment in SMEs and in case of indirect investment made through other companies investing primarily in Innovative SMEs. For innovative SMEs who have operated in the market for more than 7 years, tax allowances apply only if they are able to provide a development plan for products, services or processes that are new or significantly improve the state of the art in their industry.
4. Equity crowdfunding: in July 2013, CONSOB provided for the possibility for innovative start-ups to raise venture capital through on-line portals. As a result, Italy became the first country in the world to have introduced a specific set of rules on equity crowdfunding, allowing innovative start-ups to raise capital, also from abroad, through certified web portals.
5. Fast-track, simplified and free-of-charge access for innovative start-ups and certified incubators to the Fondo di Garanzia^[2], i.e. a Government Fund that supports access to credit through guarantees on bank loans.
6. Increased support to the process of internationalisation provided by the Italian Trade Agency (ICE), including assistance in legal, corporate and fiscal activities, real estate and credit matters, and activities aimed at favouring the matching with potential investors.

Finally, innovative SMEs can benefit from two important measures in favour of technological innovation:

1. Tax credit for research and development: Italian Financial Act of 2015^[3] (Article 1, paragraph 35) has redefined the rules on tax credit for investments in research and development as introduced by Decree “Destinazione Italia”, postponing its effect to 2015, whilst at the same time diluting the period of fruition until 2019. Tax credit is granted to companies investing in R&D, up to a maximum yearly amount of 5 million Euros for each beneficiary. The benefit can reach 50% for investments in R&D involving the employment of highly-skilled personnel or costs for research performed extra moenia, e. in collaboration with universities and research entities or organisations and/or with other companies such as innovative start-ups. The required implementation regulations were adopted by Ministerial Decree of 30 July 2015 of the Minister of Economy and Finance, in agreement with the Ministry of Economic Development^[4].
2. Patent Box: Italian Financial Act of 2015 (Article 1, paragraphs 37-45) introduced fiscal benefits on income deriving from the use of intellectual property. So-called “Patent Box”, applicable since 2015, allows companies to exclude from tax 50% of the income sourced from commercial use of intangible assets (e.g. copyrights, industrial patents and commercial brands). The more recent Investment Compact has enhanced such instrument, fully including trademarks and commercial brands among the intangible assets falling within the scope of the tax benefit. Patent Box represents a powerful measure for attracting investment in the value of intangible capital, brands and industrial models. The relevant implementation provisions were subsequently introduced by Ministerial Decree of 30 July 2015.

In conclusion, it seems that the new package is versatile and original, especially for the solutions designed for corporate law profiles. This legislative news represents an important contribution for the innovation development. Moreover it allows Italian SMEs to be even more competitive, dynamics and innovative. [1] Commission Reccomendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.[2] The “Fondo di Garanzia per le PMI” is an Italian guarantee fund for SMEs in order to ensure a partial insurance to the loans granted by lenders to small and medium enterprises.[3] Law No. 190 of 23 December 2014, “Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato” (2015 Stability Law)”(Official Gazette No. 300 of 29-12-2014 – Ordinary Supplement No. 99).[4] See http://www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/DM_30_LUGLIO_2015.pdf

1. The consumer fills and submits an online compliant form;
2. The compliant is sent to the relevant trader, who proposes an ADR entity to the consumer;
3. Once the consumer and trader agree on an ADR entity to handle their dispute, the ODR platform transfers the complaint automatically to that entity. The ADR entities are bodies that comply with the binding quality requirements established by the ADR Directive and which are included in the National list of ADR bodies;
4. The ADR entity handles the case entirely online and should reach a conclusion within 90 days.31

The ODR platform involves lots of practical benefits both for consumers and for traders. The first added value of settling a dispute on ODR platform is that users (read here European citizens, consumers or traders) will be more confident in trading online and across borders be- cause they know that any potential dispute can be solved in a quick and low cost way, and - the most important thing – not only out of court but even from their home.The Commission estimates that 60% of EU traders do not sell online to other countries be- cause of the difficulties in resolving potential problems which could be arise from a dispute over the sale.EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said, “One in three consumers experienced a problem when buying online in the past year. But a quarter of these consumers did not complain mainly because they thought the procedure was too long or they were unlikely to get a solution. The new online platform will save time and money for consumers and traders.”On the other hand, the ODR practice presents an intrinsic contradiction. Mediation is general- ly based on a face-to-face discussion of the issues between participants. The mediator typically plays the role of the helping party who listen and understands concerns and moreover, who helps parties to empathize with each other.Online mediation loses the dynamics of traditional mediation because it takes place at a distance and in front of computer screens, rather than with face-to-face communication.(32) Someauthors have argued that the lack of personal presence in online mediation can make it more difficult for the mediator to maintain effective control over the negotiating parties.(33)Traders’ dutiesEvery online trader will be required under the new legislation to comply with certain obliga- tions:

1. Provide an electronic link to the ODR platform on their website;
2. Moreover, in every commercial offer to consumers made by e-mail, similar information should be included in the e-mail;
3. The information shall also be provided in the general terms and conditions applicable to online sales and service

Currently, non compliance with the ADR Regulation could result in Trading Standards civil enforcement which could escalate into a court order to comply with the Regulations. Member States will be responsible for elaborating rules on penalties applicable to infringements which cloud result in an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison. 28 See Lucille M. Ponte, Boosting Consumer Confidence in E-business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions, 12 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 441, 442-44 (2002).29Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes   and   amending   Regulation   (EC)   No   2006/2004   and   Directive   2009/22/EC   (Regulation   on   consumer   ODR)           http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0001:0012:EN:PDF  .30 Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and     amending     Regulation     (EC)     No 2006/2004     and     Directive     2009/22/EC     (Directive     on       consumer     ADR)                                                                                                                 http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0063:0079:EN:PDF.31 These four steps are explained in the EC Factsheet of January in the Section Justice and Consumers.32     Joel        B.      Eisen,      Are      We      Ready      for      Mediation      in      Cyberspace?      1998      BYU      L.      Rev.      1305,      1308      (1998). http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1634&context=law-faculty-publications        .33 Ethan Katsh, Janet Rifkin and Alan Gaitenby, E-Commerce, E-Disputes, and E-Dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of “eBay Law,”15 OHIO ST.  J. ON DISP. RESOL. 705, 714 (2000). 

1. In Italy there are provisions on State concessions similar to those under Belgian law. In particular, Article 18 of Law No. 84/1994 provides that, in order to be granted a conces- sion, a concession-holder shall submit an operative plan, supported by suitable guarantees, aimed at increasing the port’s traffic and productivity18. State-owned lands are given to terminal operators to achieve public interest goals, namely an increase in port traffic and productivity. Therefore, compliance with the targets set out is, in the legislator’s view, an essential part of the public interest19. In the event of a concession holder’s failure to comply with the above targets, where there are no extenuating circumstances, the Port Authority is obliged to revoke the concession under Article 18 of Law No. 84/1994. Therefore it appears evident that the results of the Commission’s investigation at issue could have a strong impact on the relationships between Italian terminal operators and the Port Authorities with whom they entered into concession agreements20.
2. With reference to Italian ports, we note that in the last few weeks certain Italian Port Authorities have opened several tender procedures21 for the awarding of concessions for the construction and operation of container terminals and all ancillary works, as well as the execution of the construction works themselves, the equipping and the operation of the terminals within the terms of Article 16 of the Italian Law no. 84/94.22

Bearing in mind that the relevant projects provide the use of significant state resources, the following question must be asked: do all such projects comply with EU state aid rules? On the basis of the approach taken by the Commission in Antwerp we have reason to doubt.Any project in major European ports involving public funds are subject to the prior notification to the EU Commission according to Article 108 TFEU23. According to Article 107 TFEU, any State aid (i.e. granted through State’s resources) which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings is incompatible with the internal market.A State measure is qualified as State aid in the following circumstances: (i) use of State resources, (ii) selective advantage to the beneficiary, and (iii) (potential) distorting effects on competition.It is clear that Port Authorities must be considered an undertaking for the purposes of the article 107 TFEU24. Secondly, the so-called “market economy investor test” shall be  applicable to any public intervention both where the state is a co-funder or a lender. Favourable interest rates or payment grace periods are usually deemed as illegal if this distorts the competition in the same market. According to the test, any Member State must demonstrate that the State resources that will be granted to the Port Authorities and then made available to terminal operators would have been made available – on the same terms and conditions – by a private investor for the very same venture as those envisaged in the public tenders. In very practical terms, the Commission will have to establish if the public investments are suitable to offer a rate of return that could be acceptable to a private investor acting in normal market conditions. Therefore the financial assessment of the projects is crucial25. And it is here that the real problem lies. Today, in Italy, terminals are far from reaching their level of full utilisation26. In addition, further projects, other than those recently tendered, are already under constructionì27. This will further (and considerably) increase the overall capacity of Italian container terminals at a time when an increase in terminal traffic is not expected for many years. Would a private party invest in such a climate? In conclusion, nobody can exclude further EU investigations in this niche market. We will closely monitor any developments and update our readers.   16 The Italian case “Port of Augusta” is one of the most important examples (State aid SA 34940 (2012(N) – Port od Augusta – Italy).17 Pursuant to Article 107 TFEU, “Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in  any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market”.18 The concession-holders are required to secure the performance of the obligations arising from the concession granted by a deposit. It is therefore possible for the Port Authority to seek compensation in case of non-compliance with the targets set out in the operative plan.19 Pursuant to Law No. 84/1994 (Article 18), the Port Authorities are statutorily required to carry out inspections on a yearly basis to verifywhether concession holders are compliant with the requirements set out in their concession and whether they are implementing their opera- tive plan.20 As noted above, the non-enforcement of a guarantee or non-revocation of a concession granted, in case of default by a concession holder,might well be considered as unlawful State aid in breach of EU law, should such behaviour involve sacrifice of public interest in favour of a defaulting private party.21 Reference is made to the tender procedures issued by the following Port Authorities: Port Authority of Civitavecchia Fiumicino and Gaeta inrelation to the project “Darsena Energetica e Grandi Masse", the Port Authority of Livorno in relation to the project “Piattaforma Europa”, and Port Authority of Taranto in relation to the project “Molo Polisettoriale”.22 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Italian Law no. 84/94, “Port operations include loading, unloading, transhipment, storage, general movement of goods and all other types of material, undertaken in the port area”.23 Pursuant to Article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU “The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, it shall with-out delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision”.24 Pursuant to Italian law, the Port Authorities are public entities appointed to ensure the maintenance and development of the public-ownedinfrastructures in the Italian ports. However, when an entity is engaged in an economic activity - regardless of its legal status - it can be consid- ered as an undertaking for the purpose of the EU competition law. As a consequence, given that the above mentioned projects concern the construction of port infrastructures, it appears correct to consider that the in this case the Port Authorities carry out an economic activity and so they have to be qualified as undertakings for the purpose of the EU state aid rules.25 The Commission applies the financial indicators provided by the Guide to the cost-benefit analysis of investments projects to ascertain the sustainability of the investments. The more relevant financial indicators are the Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) and the Financial Internal Rate of Return (FRR).26 The percentage utilisation of the overall capacity of the Italian terminals amounts to about 57.5%.27 Reference is made to the following projects: Calata Bettolo (Genoa) and the new multipurpose platform in Vado Ligure (Savona).  

• the promotion of tools in order to bring more European works into the single market, in- cluding the creation of ready-to-offer catalogues of European films, the development of licensing hubs, and a larger use of standard identifiers of works;
• the support and development of a European aggregator of online search tools destined to end-users;
• the implementation of its dialogue with the audio-visual industry in order to promote le- gal offers and to find ways for a more sustained exploitation of existing European films, even exploring alternative models of financing, production and distribution in the animation

Furthermore, a goal of the Regulation must be the obligation for online content service pro- viders to offer cross-border portability to their customers. This provision will take place in the Member State in which the consumer resides, therefore, “no separate license would be re- quired to cover the temporary use of the service in other Member States”(8).The exceptions areaIn the section of copyright exceptions and limitations, the Commission highlighted the scope  of the exceptions relating to the field of research and education. In particular, the project of the Commission is to take into account legislative initiatives im- plementing the Marrakesh Treaty9 and involving:

• the chance for public interest research organisations to carry out text and data mining of content they have lawful access to for scientific research purposes;
• the clarification of the EU exception for ‘illustration for teaching’, and its related applica- tion;
• the preservation of cultural heritage institutions and/or support remote consultation, in closed electronic networks, of works held in research and academic libraries and other relevant institutions, for research and private study;
• the clarification of the so-called ‘panorama exception’(10).

With reference to this last point, it must be underlined that what it is expected is a concrete commitment to a strong exception for Freedom of Panorama. At the same time, on the other mentioned points, it has to be noted that the language describing a possible exception for text and data mining is extremely limited both in terms of beneficiaries (‘public interest research organisations’) and purpose (‘for scientific research purposes’). Furthermore, restricting an exception for text and data mining to the public interest academic research severely underes- timates the transformative potential of these technologies, and will do little to improve the competitiveness of Europe in this expanding field(11).With such respect, the Commission has proposed a “three-step” test, meaning that the ex- ceptions shall be applied only in “certain specific cases which do not conflict with a normal ex- ploitation of a work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder”.At the same time, the Commission underlined the importance to harmonise the levies that compensate right holders for reprography and private copying. Indeed, the Commission pointed out that many Member States imposed those levies on a wide range of media and de- vices, applied in many different ways across Europe. This caused a legal uncertainty that must be settled.The Commission observed a need for action to ensure that different systems of levies imposed by Member States work well in the single market without raising barriers to the free move- ment of goods and services. The Commission has also explained that “issues that may need to be addressed include the link between compensation and harm to right holders, the relation between contractual agreements and the sharing of levies, double payments, transparency towards  consumers,  exemptions  and  the  principles  governing  refund  schemes,  and non discrimination between nationals and non-nationals in the distribution of any levies collect- ed”(12). This means that the Commission will also begin to reflect on how levies can be more efficiently distributed to right holders.A brief outline of the remuneration of authors and performersThe Communication calls for action to ensure right protection of authors against unfair con- tracts. In particular, due to the strategy adopted by the EU Commission, in order to achieve a modern, more European copyright framework, in a highly competitive market-place, the au- thors shall be equally treated and remunerated.The Commission examined possible definitions of the “making available” and “communication to the public” rights13. In particular, the Commission must consider whether any specific action on news aggregators is needed, including intervening on rights. The Commission seems to  want to take into account the different factors that influence this situation beyond copyright law, “to ensure consistent and effective policy responses. Initiatives in this area will be con- sistent with the Commission's work on online platforms as part of the digital single market strategy”.Lastly, it has to be considered whether solutions at EU level are required in order to achieve legal certainty and balance in the area of remuneration of authors and performers in the EU, even taking national competences into account. The expected balanced enforcement At the end of its Communication, the EU Commission also announced that there is a need for concrete reform in the field of enforcement.In particular, the role of intermediaries in the fight against copyright infringement must change. As seen in the official Q&A, “the Commission will facilitate the development of effi- cient and balanced "follow the money" initiatives which aim at depriving commercial-scale in- fringers of intellectual property rights of their revenue flows. This process will involve rightsholders and intermediary service providers (such as advertising and payment service providers and shippers) but also consumers and the civil society”(14).In other words, this means that internet service providers shall not be liable for the content that they hold and/or transmit passively. However, intermediaries should take effective action to remove illegal content, both in case of illegal information (e.g. terrorism/child pornogra- phy) and in case of infringing information (e.g. copyright).The Commission will ask for more rigorous procedures in order to remove illegal content, such as ‘notice and action’ mechanisms and the ‘take down and stay down principle’).All in all, the Commission package has regard to emerging issues relating to the full harmoni- sation of copyright in the EU, even in the form of a single copyright code, creating a situation “where authors and performers, the creative industries, users and all those concerned by copy- right are subject to the very same rules, irrespective of where they are in the EU”.On a long-term basis, the purpose is to build a European single market, where the different cultural, intellectual and scientific productions “travel across the Europe as freely as possible”.    4 As illustrated by the Communication, the “copyright framework” is a set of 10 directives, including, without limitation, the Directive on Copyright in the Information Society (2001/29/EC, the “InfoSoc Directive”) and the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (2004/48/EC, the “IPRED Directive”).5 “Towards  a  modern,  more  European  copyright  framework”,  “Beautiful”  moves  and  “bold”  inspirations  in  EU  digital  copyright  law, www.kluwercopyrightblog.com.6 “COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE  EUROPEAN  ECONOMIC  AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - Towards a modern, more European copyright framework”, Bruxelles December 9th,  2015.7 “Towards a modern, more European copyright framework”, “Beautiful” moves and “bold” inspirations in EU digital copyright law, www.kluwercopyrightblog.com.8 “European Commission - Fact Sheet. Making EU copyright rules fit for the digital age - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS”.9 The Marrakesh Treaty promised to “Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled”.10 Must be reminded that freedom of panorama is a rule contained in some jurisdiction that allows taking photographs and video of buildings, sculptures and other art-works located in a public place, without infringing on any copyright provision subsisting in such works, and to publishing such images.11 “Leaked copyright communication: A more modern copyright framework for Europe?”, Paul Keller, November 6th, 2015.12 “COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIALCOMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - Towards a modern, more European copyright framework”, Bruxelles December 9th,  2015.13 Reference is made to the Directive 2001/29/EC.14 “European Commission - Fact Sheet. Making EU copyright rules fit for the digital age - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS”.  

• decisions of firms regarding prices, costs and inputs, including for instance raw materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand, and without significant State interference in this regard, and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;
• firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes;
• the production costs and financial situation of firms are not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write-offs, barter trade and payment via compensation of debts;
• the firms concerned are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of firms; ∞ and exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.

In a 2008 report the Commission concluded:The conclusion of this report is that China now has in place almost all the legislation which is necessary for granting of Market Economy Status. That is a considerable achievement. The focus has now switched to the effective implementation of these laws which are crucial for the functioning of any market economy. Market Economy status is assessed on the basis of five criteria. In the judgement of the European Commission, China has clearly fulfilled one of these criteria, Criterion 2 which relates to the absence of state intervention in enterprises linked to privatisation and the absence of non-market forms of exchange or compensation such as barter trade. China has made considerable progress on the remaining four.In a 2011 report the Commission did not materially change its views.In 2013, we understand that China informed the Commission that it did not wish to continue the dialogue. So no further evaluation has been made. It can be concluded that the Commission views from 2008 and 2011 remain the Commission view today.Thus the formal position of the Commission is that China is not a market economy. In recent months this finding that China is not a market economy has been reaffirmed in numerous statements both from Commissioners and Commission staffers. It can also be seen in the text of the Inception Impact Assessment document (see below).If China is not a Market Economy why change the law?A legal opinion from the Legal Service the Commission states that the EU is obliged, on the basis of the Legal Service’s interpretation of Section 15 of China’s WTO Protocol of Accession, to treat China as a market economy for the purposes of determining Normal Value. This legal opinion seems to be driving Commission thinking on the issue.The Commission has not taken on board the fact that there are legal opinions which reach different conclusions. Given its importance and the fact that it is openly contested, it is surprising that the opinion has not been made public. The concern is that it is results orientated rather than analytical.Most importantly, the Legal Service of the European Parliament, in a more detailed and comprehensive analysis, has reached a conclusion different from the Commission and considers that the provisions of Section 15 do not provide that the EU must consider China a Market Economy or clearly indicate what methodologies must be used for determining  Normal Value after December 2016.Neither of the opinions are publicly available. However, the Parliament’s opinion has been leaked to the press. And Commissioner Malmström has said publicly that the Commission  legal position is that MES must be granted.What is current Commission thinking?For the EU Commission it appears that a distinction can be made between the nature of the Chinese economy, is it or is it not a market economy, and the methodology that must be used to determine Normal Value after December 2016.This distinction is reflected in two documents recently made public: i) an Inception Impact Assessment and ii) an Open public consultation regarding a change in methodology in TDI cases.The Impact Assessment looks to evaluate the consequences of the different options available to the EU: i) maintain status quo; ii) remove China from the list of NMEs in the basic AD Regulation but allowing, where a sector is NME, use of non-China costs and prices; iii) remove the analogue country approach but re-enforce the normal TDI instruments in various ways.  The Impact Assessment is expected for May 2016.The Public Consultation asks a series of questions to stakeholders on the implications of the expiry of part of Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession as well as the functionality of the changes to the TDI instruments.Next StepsThe College of Commission will meet during the summer of 2016 to decide what approach to take. If the Commission proposes legislative change the Parliament and the Council  will  begin review of the proposal in the Autumn of 2016. Agreement between the two Chambers will be difficult to achieve.China is not a market economyChina is not a market economy. China itself calls its market a Socialist Market Economy. It is clear that China is different from the socialist economies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 40 years after the second World War. China uses different tools for managing the economy. There are currently 72 Five Year Plans applicable in China at a national, provincial and industry sector level. These plans have resulted in the massive build up of overcapacities in certain sectors. Bankruptcy and anti-trust laws are not enforced. The  ‘market’ is not allowed to function to reward winners and eliminate losers.Section 15 of China’s WTO Accession ProtocolHere I strongly share the views of my colleague Mr. Price. Section 15 paragraph (d) clearly provides that it is China which must show that it is a market economy. It is not up to the EU or the US to grant it unilaterally. The criteria to be met are those of the importing WTO Member.The expiry of paragraph (a)(ii) in December 2016 does not mandate the use of any particular methodology for determining Normal Value after that date.In fact the use of Chinese costs and prices is only mandated if the producers under investigation can show that market economy conditions prevail in their sector.If China is not a market economy then the use of Chinese costs and prices for determining Normal Value is inherently inappropriate as they are, in fact and in law, distorted by the nature of the economy that gives rise to them.Section 15 must be read in conjunction with Section 9 of China’s WTO Accession Protocol. In Section 9 China committed to allowing all prices to be set by the market with some exceptions for pharmaceuticals and certain vital services. China has not met that commitment. If prices were set by the market there would be no need for the provisions of Section 15.The US and the EUThe US and the EU are currently negotiating the TransAtlantic Trade and Partnership Agreement. US industry hopes to benefit from better access to the EU market.If, at the same time, the EU was to start calculating Normal Value on the basis of Chinese costs and prices it would, in effect, undermine the effectiveness of the EU anti-dumping instrument allowing massive dumping onto the EU market.In this scenario the benefit that the US might get from TTIP would be undermined by unfair Chinese trade into the EU.ConclusionsIt is in the interest of the US to ensure that the EU does not grant MES to China. Thus the US should make its legal interpretation of the meaning of Section 15 of the Accession Protocol known to the EU.The text of Section 15 was negotiated between the US and China. Towards the end of those negotiations the parties agreed that the expiry provisions should only apply to paragraph (a)(ii) and not to all of paragraph (a). This change was to allow the continued use of methodologies other than Chinese costs and prices for determining Normal Value.The final determination of how Section 15 should be interpreted will be made in WTO dispute settlement. If the US view is to succeed in that forum it is essential that its main trading partner supports its views. The US must now ensure that the EU does not  prejudice  its position by taking a different view.Any legislative proposal by the Commission to grant MES or its equivalent to China would already prejudice WTO dispute settlement even if that proposal was not adopted by the EU legislator. 

• regulate transmission network ownership by ensuring a clear separation of supply and production activities from the operation of the network or the grid through three models of organization : full “ownership unbundling”; independent system operator (ISO-responsible for maintenance of the networks, while the assets remain the property of the integrated company ); independent transmission operators (ITO-a system of detailed rules ensuring the autonomy, independence and investments necessary in the transmission activities);
• ensure more effective regulatory oversight from the truly independent national energy regulators, strengthening and harmonising the competences and independence of national regulators as to allow effective and non-discriminatory access to the transmission networks;
• reinforce consumer protection and ensure the protection of vulnerable consumers ;
• regulate third party access to gas storage and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and lay down rules concerning transparency and regular reporting about gas reserves;
• promote regional solidarity by requiring member States to cooperate on the event of severe disruptions of gas supply, by coordinating national emergency measures and developing gas interconnections.

Market Integration in progressThere is a little doubt that a well-functioning cross-border energy market is the only realistic tool to maintain a healthy and efficient energy sector in EU. A recent study commissioned by the Commission[3]  estimates the net economic benefits from completion of the internal market to be in the range of 16-40 billion Euros per year.So can it be said that an integrated market is a basis for the cost-efficient decarbonisation of our energy system?Some data produced by the Commission[4]  demonstrates how today 23.5% of the electricity produced in the Union and 14% of final energy consumption over all sectors is from renewable energy sources. This puts the EU on track to reach its target of 20% of our energy consumption from renewables by 2020, even if further efforts will be necessary to achieve this target. It also provides a strong basis to continue and reach a more ambitious renewable target for 2030[5]. The Commission has proposed to set an EU-wide target of at least 27%.For gas, it is even more evident that a competitive and integrated internal market is Europe’s key insurance for a high level of security supply.The overall gas security supply situation in Europe has significantly improved over the past five years. The robustness of Europe’s security of gas supply has been tasted a couple of times in recent years. Because of the adoption of the Security of Supply Regulation[6], Member States have increased their efforts and invested in more flexible pipelines, more storage capacity, enhanced emergency preparedness and response plans and increased coordination. Member States are therefore in a much better position than five years ago.Whilst significant progress has been made, a lot still remains to be done. In order for gas and power to be traded and transported smoothly across borders, physical wires or pipelines (the Hardware) on the one hand, and a clear, commonly applied regulatory framework (the Software) on the other are still needed. However, transmission grids as well as regulatory frameworks have grown nationally, with the understandable focus to optimise the national system. These now need to be forged together in regional and EU-wide systems.Thanks to the rigorous application of the provisions in Third Energy Package, including the unbundling rules and those mandating the establishment of ten-year-network development plans, an investment climate now exist that makes sure the lines that are most needed are being built . The Third Package has reduced both the incentive and the ability for operators to revert to discriminatory behaviour or hold back on the construction of important infrastructure. Today, 96 of approximately 100 transmission system operators in Europe have been certified as compliant with one of the third energy package’s unbundling models[7]. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and will also remain vigilant to ensure compliance with EU competition rules.It is particularly interesting for the EU and Member States to have a clear set of rules “…transparent, simple and robust”[8] for buiding  a definitive Internal Energy  Market.With wholesale gas and electricity markets becoming larger than single member states and with energy companies spreading their footprint beyond their home-market, market integration should not be held back by regulation and regulatory oversight that remains nationally focused. The patchwork of national regulatory regimes, and the frequency of changes in the regulatory framework in some Member States have created unnecessary administrative and transaction costs thus failing to provide a solid basis for needed investment.Therefore, the Third Energy Package foresees the development of a harmonised legal framework at European level. Thanks to the cooperative efforts at European level of national administrations, the energy regulators (under the umbrella of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy regulators, ACER ) and the network operators ( associated in the European Networks of Transmission System Operators for gas and electricity – ENTSOs’ ) it has started to take solid shape.European rules, referred to as Network Codes, are being developed, adopted and increasingly applied in the day-to-day practical functioning of the gas and electricity wholesale markets. Their impact may not be as immediately tangible as a new interconnector, but they represent true progress that is fundamental to fostering cross-border trade in gas and electricity. However, progress diverges between the electricity and the gas sector as well as between regions and new challenges have become apparent.New rules on Oil&Gas: the Commission’s 2015 proposal on new safety standards for offshore oil and gas operations Oil and gas have been extracted from beneath the seabed in Europe since the 1970s. Today, over 90% of oil and over 60% of gas produced in the EU and Norway comes from offshore operations. There are more than 1000 offshore oil or gas installations in operation in European waters. While most production is from the North Sea region, and most of the oil comes from the UK and Norway, interest is developing throughout the EU offshore provinces and 13 Member States (UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Malta and Cyprus) have awarded offshore oil and gas licences to companies exploring for natural resources.The offshore industry in different Member States operates to different environmental, health and safety standards. To date EU legislation does not cover all the aspects of the offshore oil and gas industry and national legislation is very different between Member States. Despite action by some Member States to reform their systems after disasters in the North Sea in the 1980s there is still a significant risk of severe accidents. Past events show that at least 14 major offshore disasters – such as blow-outs at pumping wells and total loss of production platforms - have occurred around the world in the last 30 years, 5 of them in the last 10 years. Possible consequences of a major accident are extreme. They include loss of life, major environmental damage, and collateral damage to coastal and marine livelihoods. In financial terms, as we have seen, an event on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico disaster can cause damage of as much as Euro 30 billion.The new draft regulation sets clear rules that cover the whole lifecycle of all exploration and production activities from design to the final removal of an oil or gas installation. Under the control of the National regulatory authorities, European industry will have to assess and further improve safety standards for offshore operations on a regular basis. This new approach will lead to a European risk assessment that allows for continuous upgrades by taking into account new technology, new know-how and new risks. It introduces requirements for effective prevention and response of a major accident:

• Licensing: the licensing authorities in the Member States will have to make sure that only operators with sufficient technical and financial capacity necessary to control the safety of offshore activities and environmental protection are allowed to explore for, and produce oil and gas in EU waters.
• Independent verifiers: the technical solutions presented by the operator that are critical for safety on the installation need to be verified by an independent third party prior to and periodically after the installation starts operating.
• Obligatory ex ante emergency planning: companies will have to prepare a Major Hazard Report for their installation, containing a risk assessment and an emergency response plan before exploration or production begins. These reports will need to be submitted to national authorities competent to give a go-ahead if satisfied.
• Inspections: independent national Competent Authorities responsible for the safety of installations, competent to verify the provisions for safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness of rigs and platforms and the operations conducted on them. If an operator does not respect the minimum standards, the competent authority will take enforcement action and/or impose penalties; ultimately, the operator will have to stop his drilling or production operations if he fails to comply.
• Transparency: comparable information will be made available to citizens about the standards of performance of the industry and the activities of the national competent authorities. This will be published on their websites.
• Emergency Response: companies will prepare emergency response plans based on their rig or platform risk assessments and keep resources at hand to be able to put them into operation when necessary. Member States will likewise take full account of these plans when they compile national emergency plans. The plans will be periodically tested by the industry and national authorities.
• Liability: oil and gas companies will be fully liable for environmental damages caused to the protected marine species and natural habitat. For damage to waters, the geographical zone will be extended to cover all EU marine waters including the exclusive economic zone (up to about 370 km from the coast) and the continental shelf where the coastal Member State exercises jurisdiction. For water damage, the present EU legal framework for environmental liability is restricted to territorial waters (about 22 km offshore).
• International aspects: the Commission will work with its international partners to promote the implementation of highest safety standards across the world. EU Offshore Authorities Group: offshore inspectors of Member States will work together to ensure effective sharing of best practices and contribute to developing and improving safety standards.

Alongside and in conjunction with this legislative proposal, the Commission is putting forward a proposal for the EU to accede to a Protocol of the Barcelona Convention that protects the Mediterranean against pollution from offshore exploration and exploitation activities.The EU has struggled to gain competence in the energy sector and to coordinate the policies of the different Member States. This brief review of the past 40 or so years shows that steadily the need for an EU wide approach has been recognised and steps taken to create it. There is still a long way to go. But Europe is a lot further ahead today than many predicted in 1970.[1] Conclusion of the the European Council of 4 February 2011.[2] Directives on electricity 2009/72/EC repealing Directive (EC) 2003/54  and gas 2009/73/EC repeailing Directive (EC) 2003/55.[3] Study “Benefits of an Integrated European Energy Market” by Booz & Company, Amsterdam, pag. 21.[4] Commission’s Communication “Progress towards completing the Internal Energy Market , COM(2014)634 final.[5] Commission’s Communication “A policy framework fopr climate and energy in the period form 20120 to 20130”, COM(2014)15 final.[6] Regulation (EU) No. 994/2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive  (EC) 2004/67, OJ L 295/1.[7] Commission’s Communication “European Energy Security Strategy”, 28 May 2014.[8] Commission’s Communication COM (2014) 634 final, cit.

1. Energy security, solidarity and trust

Since the EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes and some countries depend for their gas imports on one main supplier, the aim for improving our energy security will be to diversify the energy sources and suppliers. Exploring new supply regions for fuels, exploring new technologies, further developing indigenous resources and improving infrastructure to access new sources of supply are all elements that will contribute to the increased diversification and security of Europe’s energy sector. In this context, as far as gas is concerned, the Commission will develop a resilience and diversification package for gas, which in particolar will include a revision of the Security of Gas Supply regulation.^[4]

2. A fully integrated energy market

It will be necessary the integration of variable renewable energy. Meeting this challenge requires a market designs that provides for coordination of capacities at regional level, storage and more flexibility in demand response, enabling consumer to better partecipate in markets and allowing energy to be exchanged across borders more easily.

3. Energy efficiency

Heating and cooling remains the largest single source of energy demand in Europe. The Commission will therefore carry out a review of the Energy Efficiency and Energy Performance of Buildings Directives to create the right framework for further progress in delivering energy efficiency in buildings. Based on the on-the-ground experience in the Member States, the Commission will support ways to simplify access to existing financing to make building stocks more energy-efficient. Investments in buildings’ efficiency are amongst the most profitable for citizens and industry today.

4. Decarbonising the economy

The Energy Union aims to guarantee that renewable energy will be mainstreamed and fully integrated into a fully sustainable, secure and cost-efficient energy system. In order to allow that the EU mantain its world leader position in competitive renewable energy technology and innovation, the Commission will:

• put in place new market rules so as to integrate renewable production efficiently into the market, including by the development of new infrastructure, especially interconnections;
• Facilitate cooperation and the convergence of national renewable energy policies and ensure fair competition between all generation sources as well as demand and lead to more cross border opening of renewables support;
• promote renewable energy research, including through dedicated EU funds;
• speed up the decarbonisation of the transport sector, including by promoting the electrification of the transport sector and invenstments in advanced biofuel production, and further integrate the energy and transport system.

This will lower the overall financing cost for renewable projects and facilitate the achievement of the 2020 and 2030 targets.In fact, EU wants to operate a reduction target of at least 40% in greenhouse gas emission by 2030 (which means reduce emissions in the carbon market’s sectors: 43% for the ETS^[5] and 30% for the non-ETS compared to 2005), to increase the share of the renewable in the energy mix to 27% and to improve energy efficiency by at least 27%. The “at least 40%” target is ambitious and fair and is in line with a cost-efficient pathway to at least 80% domestic reduction by 2050.This is an ambitious climate policy that wants to turn a challenge into an opportunity.Apart from its crucial importance for EU climate policy, the emission reduction  has multiple energy, economic and environmental benefits. From an energy perspective, meeting the emissions reduction target will result in less consumption of fossil fuels. This, in turn, will reduce the vulnerability of our economy to fuel insecurity and high costs of imported fuel. Furthermore the costs of a low carbon transition do not differ substantially from the costs that will be incurred in any event due to the need to renew an ageing energy system. From the environmental perspective, meeting the target will also reduce air pollution.

5. Research, Innovation and Competitiveness

A vital contribution to the objectives of the Energy Union will come from the implementation of Horizon 2020, the nearly €80 billion EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation[6]. This financial support will play a significant catalysing and leveraging role to develop the secure, clean and efficient energy technologies of tomorrow. The Energy theme, which is part of the key social challenges addressed in the programme, is broad, far-reaching and will help to improve lives, protect the environment and make the European industry more sustainable and competitive.All the above mentioned dimensions are areas that require more integration and coordination. As said by Miguel Arias Cañete, Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy “We need a new era of cooperation, we need solidarity”. This desire and need of solidarity reached the zenith with the Paris Conference on clima. Europe needs a new climate agreement because the International community has recognised the scientific evidence that global average annual temperature increase needs to be held well below 2°C compared to the temperature in pre industrial times in order to prevent climate change from reaching dangerous levels.Europe needs to speak with one voice to take on this challenge for the future generation who will benefit if climate change is prevented from reaching dangerous levels.  Because, as Robert Schuman said, “Europe will not be made all at once, or accordingly to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity”. [1] Both in GUUE L 176 of 25 July 2003.[2] Both in GUUE L 211 of 14 August 2009.[3] See COM(2015) 80 final at the following link: ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union/docs/energyunion_en.pdf.[4] Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Directive (EC) 2004/67.[5] Since 2005, the European Union has introduced the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) with a view of reducing CO2 emissions in energy-intensive sectors. The Scheme covers more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 31 countries, as well as airline operators throughout Europe. Based on a European Commission proposal from 2014, the European Parliament and the Council currently discuss legislation to reform the EU ETS by introducing a market stability reserve (MSR). This feature has been designed to increase the shock resilience of the EU ETS in the future. At the same time it allows to neutralise negative impacts of the prevailing significant market surplus on low-carbon investment incentives. The co-legislators are currently negotiating MSR design elements which will determine the pace of absorbing surplus allowances into the MSR. Beyond this reform process, the Commission will propose further changes to the legislation swiftly after the MSR legislation has been agreed. These further changes are needed to implement the strategic guidance of EU leaders on how the EU ETS should operate in the decade up to 2030. This includes an increase in the linear reduction factor (the rate at which the emissions cap is tightened from year to year) from 1.74 % to 2.2 % as of 2021. In addition, legislation will be changed to allow industry to benefit from carbon leakage measures and free allocation of emission allowances beyond 2020 in line with principles agreed by EU leaders. Finally, changes to the ETS Directive will be made to create a legal basis for establishing an innovation fund and a modernisation fund. These two financial vehicles are funded from the proceeds of allowances in 2021 to 2030. The innovation fund will support low-carbon demonstration activities across the EU and the modernisation fund will support the modernisation of energy systems in low-income Member States.[6] See in number 3 of Across the EUniverse “Horizon 2020: what, who and how it works in practice” written by Elena Bertolotto.

• Maximize the impact from technology by investing in smart meters in order to improve the operational performance of the network and tackle both technical and non-technical losses;
• Accelerate the Digital Transformation of the network.

On the other hand, in developing countries, one of the biggest challenges of electric utilities is the distribution losses reduction. Energy losses represent an economic loss for the country: its optimization and improvement on energy efficiency would partially cover the expected demand rise in electrical consumption, without the necessity to increase the installed capacity. On average, electricity utilities in Sub-Saharan Africa lose 25% of all power supplied due to operational inefficiencies[2]. To illustrate the potential of energy efficiency, SE4All partner Accenture has calculated that just 75 of these new pledges by a range of businesses across the developed and developing world represent an estimated total energy saving in 2016-2020 of 62,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) – the equivalent of nine months’ energy use for the whole of Paris.“This is the tip of the iceberg. The potential is vast – but it won’t be realised without a massive scaling up of this kind of action to levels far beyond what we have seen so far,” said Rachel Kyte, incoming Chief Executive Officer of SE4All and Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Sustainable Energy for All.“In the next few years we have a historic window of opportunity to shake up business-as-usual, building on the momentum of the SDGs and COP21 and the goodwill of this growing global movement. But unless we grab that opportunity, the window will quickly close,” added Ms Kyte.A step-change in financing will be crucial. SE4All’s Global Tracking Framework 2015 estimates that investment in sustainable energy will need to triple from current levels, to more than one trillion US dollars a year from now to 2030, to meet the SE4All targets and Sustainable Development Goal 7.Action is coalescing on several fronts to bridge this investment gap. For example, some 140 banks and institutional investors managing close to USD 4 trillion have recently committed to a major increase in energy efficiency lending and investment in their portfolios.[1] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs – The World Population Prospects [2015].[2] Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund — Energy subsidy reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: experiences and lessons [2013].

• The Algerian electricity regulator (CREG) successfully developed feed-in-tariffs (FIT) that guarantee to RES producers purchase tariffs for photovoltaic and wind facilities output.
• Egypt during 20 years started a substantial reform of its energy sector, including the establishment of a regulatory authority for the gas market in addition to its existing electricity regulatory authority (Egyptera) and the introduction of feed-in tariffs to boost electricity production from renewable energies. Recently has been also approved a new electricity law and EgyptERA started a twinning project (financially supported by the European Commission) with regulators of Greece (RAE) and Italy (AEEGSI).
• Morocco has been moving forward in the process for the setting-up of a regulatory authority for electricity and gas and the draft law reforming the energy sector has been presented to the national stakeholders and will be submitted to the Parliament as soon as an agreement is found between the government, the local administrations, the public operator and the main trade unions.
• The mission of the electricity regulator of Jordan was extended to all mineral resources and the Authority became the Electricity and Mineral resources Regulatory Commission (EMRC).

MEDREG considers that the necessary transition towards independent energy regulation should include a set of principles common to the whole region. MEDREG focused on the role these principles should play in the protection of consumers, by ensuring a minimum set of rights about clear information on contracts and bills, the efficient use of energy, the handling of complaint and setting up cooperation with consumer associations and civil society.A coherent regulatory framework allows national regulatory authorities to obtain sufficient legal powers to implement coherent decision-making processes and ensure their governance mission through effective secondary legislation, market monitoring, and stakeholders’ decisions in the interest of the entire community. The term independence entails both the extent and the degree of the discretion and autonomy entrusted to regulatory bodies.Regulators should be able to take autonomous decisions and have the capacity to enforce them, including financial and organizational independence: this autonomy depends on a number of important aspects:

• concrete independence of the regulatory board;
• nomination of the board should be performed by the highest level of political authority and among proved high skilled profiles;
• board members should adhere to a code of conduct aimed at reducing the influence from any private of public entity;
• competences of an independent regulator should also include monitoring the market avoiding any abuse of dominant positions, in particular to the detriment of consumers, as well as predatory and anti-competitive behavior. This competence is essential for the regulator to fulfill its duty as market watchdog. It includes enforcement powers as the ability to investigate and sanction network and market operators for failure to match existing regulation.

In order to proactively engage stakeholders, regulators should ensure that proper standards of transparency and accountability are met. Regulators should release information on the procedures in place, while protecting commercial sensitive data at the same time. Regulators should as well regularly publish information on their own organization, including management and financial indicators, in order to identify the outcomes and results of their action. This practice should encourage national regulatory agencies to adopt an effective organization for non-discriminatory recruitment and increasing internal staff mobility. Sufficient human and financial resources are pivotal to implement the regulator’s mission and are closely linked with the independence of the whole decision making process.  MEDREG has been listing the minimal competences that an independent regulator should have, and started a voluntary peer-review process to assess the compliance of its member regulators to these competences. This exercise aims at providing Mediterranean regulators with a proper evaluation of their effectiveness and with suggestions on how to improve it.Regulation and infrastructuresIn order to provide the vision of Energy Regulators on the situation of Infrastructure investment in the Mediterranean region, MEDREG developed a report that maps current and projected interconnection infrastructures for electricity and gas and discussed the challenges to finance them properly in the absence of an harmonized regulatory framework. This report assesses the main barriers that represent an obstacle to efficiently using existing infrastructure and financing new projects.In the first quarter of 2015, the report underwent a public consultation, which counted 37 responses. MEDREG held a workshop with the respondents in April 2015 in Sharm El-Sheikh and use the outcomes of the consultation and workshop to finalize the report, which is now out on the Association’s website (www.medreg-regulators.org) together with all consultation documents. The recommendations of the report include 8 main points:

1. Establish competitive and reliable energy markets: the majority of existing electricity and gas infrastructures have been built so far for security of supply needs. Today, infrastructure investments are also driven by market forces and face regional competition. Public policy decisions are therefore decisive to foster and secure investments. In some MEDREG countries they are even more relevant than economic factors to develop their internal markets. Policy makers should devote considerable efforts to link investment plans to the progressive opening of their national markets.
2. Promote deeper harmonization of national regulatory frameworks: the absence of a regulatory level playing field between the Northern and Southern shore of the Mediterranean is particularly negative for investments, as different sets of rules exist in the various Mediterranean sub-regions. In the absence of a formal commitment among Mediterranean policy makers, all stakeholders have to voluntarily engage now to establish deeper legal harmonization. Stronger cooperation between EU, Middle East and North African countries is also a precondition to establish a regional energy market with a sound investment climate. The Euro-Mediterranean Platforms on Electricity, Gas and Renewable Energy Sources and Energy Efficiency should strongly promote the establishment of a set of common rules to support a fair and reliable framework for energy investments.
3. Increase the use of existing interconnections in the Southern shore: in spite of the existence of several South-South Mediterranean interconnections, electricity trade among these countries has remained modest. The average level of use is not more than one third of the total capacity. This can be mainly attributed to the political and economic barriers at national and regional levels. In several cases, technical issues also add to the problem. Integrated resource planning is therefore essential at the national as well as at the regional level to review, understand, and provide input to the planning decisions of the interconnection projects. For an integrated resource planning process to be effective, it should include both a meaningful stakeholder process and a proper oversight from an engaged regulator. A proper assessment of the existing situation would help designing a consistent methodology to evaluate energy infrastructure investments and take adequate planning decisions.
4. Evaluate the economic benefits of new cross-border infrastructure projects: the potential increase of investment volumes will create strong needs for political consensus and investment bankability, thus requiring the definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. The case of the European Union clearly shows this is the way ahead to maintain and reinforce investments. Developing sound methodologies for CBA (Cross Border Allocation) will help improving the investment climate in the region. The economic assessment shall also take into account security of supply and social considerations. An effective way to ensure risk-adjusted returns to investors could also be through “priority premiums”, which compensate the additional risk and complexity of new projects.
5. Enhance cooperation between regulators and TSOs: the dialogue and technical coordination between regulators and TSOs, both at national and regional level, is becoming pivotal to build an effective and efficient regional energy market. It contributes to the transparency and stability of the regulatory and economic frameworks, which is essential for attracting investments in the Mediterranean basin. MEDREG recognizes the central role of TSOs in identifying investment needs and assessing infrastructure projects. It is advisable that TSOs regularly provide data to regulators and are responsible for drafting investment plans, which are then subject to regulatory review. MEDREG believes that the regular and transparent exchange of information and know-how among regulators and TSOs could synergize the efforts for cooperation in the Mediterranean. The 2013 cooperation agreement between MEDREG and Med-TSO and the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding signed with Med-TSO and the EC to implement the Euro-Mediterranean Platform on Electricity are positive steps towards this direction.
6. Design a Ten-Year Network Development Plan for the Mediterranean region: the assessment of overall costs and benefits deriving from infrastructure investments (in particular new ones) is a complex task and needs very careful consideration. In the medium term the improvement of the use of existing infrastructures and the definition of common rules regarding new ones. In the medium to long term, it could be beneficial for the region to develop a Mediterranean TYNDP (Ten-Year Network Development Plan) based on a sound methodology developed by TSOs and assessed by regulators.
7. Identify projects of Mediterranean common interest: considering the European experience regarding the PCIs (Project of Common Interest) and following the example of the Energy Community, MEDREG could also consider a list of infrastructure projects that are of interest for the whole region. The selection process should be transparent and non-discriminatory, and involve international financial institutions active in the region such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB). According to the data on electricity and gas flow analyzed in MEDREG’s report and the responses to the its public consultation, under the current forecasts for demand and given their known technical specifications, some projects seem particularly relevant for the energy development of the MENA region.
8. Support technology innovation to improve the condition of vulnerable consumers: the great and growing level of investment involving renewable energy sources is dramatically changing electricity markets. During the last twenty years, Southern Mediterranean countries have elaborated different institutional schemes with the aim to promote the usage of renewable energy sources (RES). While every country has developed its own approach, most of them have raised the bar of their objectives concerning generation and development of RES. Almost all the countries have passed or are discussing legislation regulating the sector. However, incentive measures tend to be limited and only a few of these regulations foresee the use of feed-in tariffs as a means of support. In most cases, the use of authorization procedures or tax exemptions is preferred. Distributed generation could represent an important chapter that links greater investment in RES to the reduction of fuel poverty and the creation of better conditions for vulnerable consumers. Technology innovation is also key to improve specific national aspects of Mediterranean energy markets concerning consumers, such as technical safety, quality of service and provision of transparent and complete information to the benefit of household consumers.

ConclusionEnergy markets in the Mediterranean region need more independent regulators and, at the same time, closer cooperation among the most relevant and different regional and national energy actors: regulators, governments, producers, transmission system operators, investors and consumersMEDREG regularly cooperates with the main stakeholders of the region MedTSO (Transmission systems operators), UFM – Union for Mediterranean (Governments), PAM – Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean (Parliaments), OME - Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie, RES4MED (energy companies), other Institutions RECREE, MEDENER, etc.Bottom up approach and technical-institutional cooperation are key factors of a successful and effective integration of energy market in the Mediterranean Region. For more information on MEDREG and to download the report visit www.medreg-regulators.org 

1. An increased penetration of the electricity in the energy system, which is able to bring to energy customers a cleaner energy carrier;
2. A stronger and complete market design, which is able to provide the requested quantity of power at a fair price;
3. A consistent evolution of the production structure of the power industry, which is able to enhance both efficient and renewable sources.

As a matter of fact, electricity today can be produced in very efficient power plants fueled with fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal, whose pollution emissions are strictly regulated. On the other hand, production both from thermal and non-thermal renewables have recently widespread all over Europe, directly helping in achieving EU climate objectives.Such a development has been until now strongly based on supporting schemes, very expensive in most of the cases. If we take the example of Italy, in the period 2009-2014, power production from RES have increased from 69 to 121 TWh (real annual data), but in the same period more than 42 bilion euro have been charged on power prices to promote the RES deployment, especially from PV source. As a result, levies charged on consumption to finance the said evolution have boosted. For instance, the levies paid by the (hypothetical) Italian household customer consuming about 2,7 MWh/year have increased from 4,29 euro/MWh to 31,45 euro/MWh.Anyway the evolution towards an efficient and RES-based power system is still under way and can be clearly even more strengthened, but keeping in mind the necessity to avoid excessive costs for the EU electricity system.The way forward is to exploit the existing potential at European Level, by avoiding both the actual lack of alignment between Member States – which have in the last years developed very different schemes - and the inability to internalize the reduction of RES investment costs, due to relative rigidity of the premium price (clearly downward).In few words, we need more RES at lower costs in a power system which is fit for them.Such an evolution requires a new market design.Indeed, the actual market rules are, more or less, rooted on the revolution introduced even in Europe when it became clear the necessity to open up the power markets together with the availability of new sources and technologies. Natural gas fueled CCGT came out in the late 80s and the market revolution started.Today the new step forward is offered by RES penetration into the energy system, which is especially challenging for V-RES, i.e. those sources whose availability can be forecasted only in statistical terms.Hence an evolution of the actual market design is requested to allow both RES to participate in all the power markets (from day-ahead one to balancing or capacity markets) and the productive structure to cope with the request for long-lasting capacity availability and flexibility, that is system adequacy.This development is twofold.On the one hand, the short-term market must be adapted to the necessities (or limits) of RES powerplant, to completely exploit the benefits that RES can offer to the energy system. Markets must be fit for RES, i.e. they must efficiently use the available flexibility and assign the right value to it. RES should be able to compete on an equal footing with conventional sources and should be exposed to prices from markets that would give adequate signals to produce electricity when needed or to install/use storage technologies. All generators (conventional and renewable) should be equally balancing responsible.To this extent, for instance, adequate intraday markets must be developed, where trading is continuous and gate closure time is harmonized and near to real time, imbalance settlement periods are set out accordingly, clear rules for curtailing power generation are defined, balancing markets allow the efficient use of balancing resources and enable RES participation.At the same time, until the conditions enabling fair competition among all sources are not in place some measures should be envisaged in order to guarantee a smooth transition. Furthermore, recommendations on balancing responsibilities have to consider market maturity as well as the penetration level of non-programmable renewable generation (V-RES) in the system. So, for instance, the participation of V-RES to the balancing markets for all services should occur only on a voluntary basis. At the same time, Market design should also allow Aggregators to dispatch distributed resources and to facilitate the participation of plants which do not intend to participate directly in the market.On the other hand the power market must go over the short-term and energy-only concepts, recognizing the necessity to offer, more than energy, repeated-over-time security of being supplied. Capacity markets must be introduced, clearly in line with state-aid regulation, which are able to promote future market-based investments, in a competitive environment.Now, the most asked question is why to abandon an energy-only power market which is able to give investment signals until being competitive.The issue here is the price.RES supporting schemes have been financed via premium prices charged on power consumption. Such taxes and levies charged on electricity have introduced a gap between the market value of the electricity, as perceived by participants both on the supply and the demand side, and its price. The rising role of the “non-market-based” components (again, taxes and levies) have hindered the role of the price in the energy markets.As prices in the energy-only model have lost part of their representativeness, they are no more sufficient to give correct signal for new investments or consumption behaviors.On the latter, the issue is that prices are no fairer, because they do not reflect the value of the electricity consumed by the customer but include indeed a value which is linked to the electricity produced in the power system. Hence, the customer is paying a quota of the public objectives taken at EU and national level, without being (normally) aware of that and being informed on the trade-off.About the former, while the overall price have been increasing, the energy component of the price -which is the one more related to the investment cycle at least in a marked-based system - havestrongly decreased.Hence it appear necessary that the future market design is based not only on prices which reflect actual scarcity, but also on prices which reflect the actual relation between demand and supply of capacity, energy and flexibility, now and tomorrow.These challenges can be addressed by defining well-structured capacity remuneration mechanisms as instruments to provide long term signals to the market. Hence, well-designed and technology neutral capacity mechanisms (such as Italian reliability options) are necessary to give the market those right long term and stable signals for investing in new capacity/upgrading existing one or for deciding to disinvest in existing plants.It would be in any case unfinished any project which is unable to rethink also the design of the retail market, starting from a (perceived) evolution of a market fundamental. Indeed, one of the aftermaths of the evolution towards a RES-based power system is the decline of the value of making electricity available.Power per se has lost and will lost added-value [By the way it can be noted that this is the implicit meaning of the transition towards a twofold power market, where also system adequacy is correctly priced].As it happens in all the mature markets, even in the power industry the service (indeed in Europe, not likely in most neighboring countries) is acquiring more and more weight. Hence the new challenge is to guarantee an evolution where the customer is offered the needed or desirable services by a multitude of suppliers ensuring a level playing field.And here it comes the customer and the Commission’s “Fifth freedom”. In the Energy Union concept the new role of the prosumer is pivotal, since it is seen as a picklock for opening up the energy markets. But this freedom to produce and to actively take part to the market has to be rooted, again, on equal responsibilities, between costumers this time.That is to say, for instance, that all consumers including self-generators should participate on an equal footing to cover network and system costs, as the growth in self-generation does not decrease distribution costs. Neither it does with system costs, especially when they include price components tailored to finance public policies.Therefore the energy markets rethinking process, to really start from the citizens, should be able to avoid any “consumer divide” process, creating speculative bubbles in the regulatory assessment simply for being unable to socialize those costs which come from public objectives.Hence, in the new overall power market, the price must be able to allow competition to grow up while offering a signal for actual and future scarcity, at the same time being as neat as possible from other components which do not allow the right perception of the trade-off between consuming power or not.In this predictable future market environment, electricity can be made available to satisfy increased needs of energy. Electricity produced exploiting the RES potential or very efficient fossil fuels plants is able to internalize the search for a cleaner form of energy.Polluting emissions can be released far away from town centers while being strictly controlled in terms of both average concentration and overall quantity. Lack of ability of the public authority to introduce and keep measures to abate inner town pollution levels can be answered, in the longer term, only by cleaning the energy carrier, not by renouncing to energy.Other objectives (less perceived by the multitude despite years of advocacy campaigns) can be better or more easily achieved. Overall GHG emissions from the energy sector can be strongly reduced and – turning to efficiency - the decline of fossil fuels consumption can be offset by the increased availability of renewable sources, without renouncing to the service.As a matter of fact, an increased penetration of power in heating and cooling and, most of all, in collective and private transport is the turnaround for a stronger and farsighted strategy against the pollution-based morbidity and mortality and the climate change.Hence, the distribution system must evolve in a smart way, being able to take power where it is needed, while the DSOs should be able, and made able, to carry out their new role of neutral market facilitator. But this is another story. Stay tuned.To conclude, briefly, a new Energy Union can be enforced in the view of allowing European citizens to a better choice for the energy they need. To this extent, power must be smartly available, offered by a number of different suppliers, in the requested quantity, being produced from efficient and renewable sources and valorized at a fair price, which reflect actual and future availability.There is no other farsighted way than abandoning a “hunc et nunc” approach and start thinking (even) to the future, as Aesop teaches us. [1] “A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy” - COM/2015/080 final - Annex I: “Roadmap for the Energy Union”.[2] “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EC) 2003/87 to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments” - COM(2015) 337 final. Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ENVI/8/03972 – Rapporteur Ian Duncan (ECR) - Awaiting Committee decision - Council of the European Union: 2001/0245 (COD) “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive (EU) 2010/30” – COM (2015) 341 final. The proposed Regulation is accompanied by a short report, a detailed impact assessment (SWD(2015) 139 final), and an evaluation of the existing Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives (SWD(2015) 143 final), Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ITRE/8/03966 – Rapporteur Dario Tamburrano (EFDD) - Awaiting Committee decision –Voted scheduled in Committee, 1st reading, 24/05/2016; Council of the European Union: 2015/0149 (COD) “Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers” - COM(2015) 339 final “Launching the public consultation process on a new energy market design” - COM(2015) 340 final (closed in October the 9th).[3] “State of the Energy Union 2015” - COM(2015) 572 final – Annex I: “Updated Roadmap for Energy Union”; Annex II: “Guidance to Members States on National and Climate Plans as part of the Energy Union Governance” - Accompanying Document: “Monitoring progress towards the Energy Union objectives - Concept and first analysis of key indicators” (SWD(2015) 243 final); Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/...of 18 of November 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 as regards the Union list of projects of common interest - C(2015) 8052 final; Council of the European Union: ST 15156 2015 INIT - The Council may object to it until 18 February 2016. Proposal for a Regulation on “European statistics on natural gas and electricity prices and repealing Directive (EC ) 2008/92 concerning a Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users” - COM(2015) 496 final - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ITRE/8/05106 – Rapporteur Barbara Kappel (ENF) - Awaiting Committee decision - Council of the European Union: 2015/0239 (COD) - DG Energy - Consultation Questionnaire – “Preparation of a new renewable energy directive for the period after 2020” (RED II) - 18 November 2015 to 10 February 2016 - DG Energy – Consultation on the Review of the Directive(EU) 2012/27 on Energy Efficiency - 4 November 2015 to 29 January 2016.

• Member States' Passenger Information Units (PIUs) would be entitled to process PNR data only for limited purposes, such as identifying a passenger who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime and who requires further examination;
• PIUs would have to appoint a data protection officer to monitor data processing and safeguards and act as a single contact point for passengers with PNR data concerns;
• All processing of PNR data would have to be logged or documented;
• Passengers would have to be clearly and precisely informed about the collection of PNR data and their rights; and
• Stricter conditions would govern any transfer of data to third countries.

Furthermore, having regard to the recent judgment of the Court of Justice,^[4] in relation to the impact of the proportionality principle, two different limitation periods – five years for terrorism and four years for serious transnational crimes – have been introduced for accessing the data. The full information should be retained for the first 30-day period, after that it should be ‘masked out’ for the remaining period.^[5]After the four-five year period, the PNR data should be permanently deleted, unless the competent authorities are using it for specific criminal investigations or prosecutions (in which case the retention of data would be regulated by the national law of the member state concerned).Despite these new amendments some doubts remain about the impact of PNR data retention on fundamental rights, such as:

• The right to privacy;[6]
• The right to data protection, especially in the context of the on-going reform of the EU data protection framework.[7] The controversies relate - inter alia - to the lengthy period of data retention, the incomplete nature of anonymisation of data, allowing for its easy retrieval, and the transfer of data to third countries;
• The right of non-discrimination, with indirect discrimination being more likely than direct discrimination, given the prohibition on processing sensitive data under the proposed Directive;
• The right to free movement. According to the EU Free Movement Directive,[8] Member States may restrict the freedom of movement of EU citizens on grounds of public policy or public security. However, such restrictions need to comply with the principle of proportionality and be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A risk of the breach of this right is highlighted in regard to the possible extension of the EU PNR scheme to intra-EU flights.

The European Data Protection Supervisor, Mr Giovanni Buttarelli, has criticised the proposal stating that it is too invasive and is unlikely to stop terrorism.The trilogue on this matter should begin in September.^[9] In a resolution voted on 11 February 2015, the EU Parliament has in fact committed itself ‘to work towards the finalisation of an EU PNR directive by the end of the year’.The difficult balance between national security and citizens’ privacy is a frequent problem that our modern society must face. It is not only the EU that attempts to fight terrorism and crime. The EU Member States are trying to find acceptable solutions in order to protect their citizens.For instance, the French Senate passed, on 24 June 2015, a new statute allowing the French authorities to monitor and intercept citizens’ communications. On 23 July 2015, the Constitutional Court approved that new law, finding only a few articles contrary to constitutional principles.Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, believes that ‘from now on, France has a security framework against terrorism that respects liberties. It’s decisive progress’.In France, for wireless phone taps, hidden cameras and microphones there will be no need of a warrant or any type court approval. The new law has now provided for the mandatory consultation of the National Commission for the Control of Intelligence. The recommendations of this Authority are not binding.The LIBE Committee has raised concerns about the compatibility of some of the French provisions with the EU Treaties.Mr Buttarelli was also critical of the French law saying that ‘mass surveillance is against values and has no legitimacy in the EU’. He also added that ‘as people become more monitored and more profiled, they risk discrimination in terms of access to services’.We will keep you posted on the adoption of the PNR Directive and the debate around the new French law and its compatibility with EU principles.[1] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, COM(2011) 32 final, 2.2.2011.[2] The LIBE Committee deals with Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (for further information, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/home.html).[3] In sharing the PNR data the Europol’s Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) system should be used.[4] Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital rights Ireland Ltd and Karntner Landesregieurung, judgment of 8 April 2014, not yet published.[5] When the information is ‘masked out’ all the data that could serve to identify the passenger is anonymised. In this period of time the data will be accessible only to a limited number of personnel of the Passenger Information Unit specifically authorized to carry out analysis of PNR data and develop assessment criteria.[6] The right to privacy falls within the scope of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (C 364 of 18.12.2000, p.1) providing that: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications’.[7] The right to data protection is protected under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reading as follows: ‘Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. // 2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. // 3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.’[8] Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within  the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p.77.[9] The three-way talks between Parliament, Council and Commission negotiators to agree on the final text of a legislative act when one or more of the three institutions have reached incompatible conclusions or introduced incompatible amendments.

• infringement of the obligation to state reasons on which the contested provisions are based, thus violating the Companies’ rights to defend themselves;

• manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, since the Companies believe that there is no genuine factual or evidential basis to justify said provisions;

• infringement of the right to effective judicial protection;

• misuse of powers, given that the Companies believe that the Council, in adopting the sanctions, was pursuing aims other than those claimed;

• infringement of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights, since the sanctions constitute, in the Companies’ opinion, a disproportionate interference with the Companies’ freedom to conduct business and the right to property;

• violation of the 1994 EU-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation.

Russian Companies affected by sanctions believe that the latter are not appropriate to achieve the declared objectives and furthermore impose burdens that significantly outweigh any possible benefit.Furthermore, the banks claim that they don’t meet the criteria[5] to be included in the sanction lists. Sberbank[6], for example, has pointed out that the Russian Federation is not its main shareholder and does not manage the bank, thus excluding the bank from sanctions.The most startling case of all is the one brought before the ECJ by Almaz-Antey. Almaz-Antey is a joint undertaking that brings together some Russian military enterprises. The company has been included in the list of sanctioned companies because it manufactures anti-aircraft defence systems, which the EU Council believes allegedly brought down the MH-17 flight over Ukrainian soil. The Company argues that its inclusion in the list of sanctioned companies is illegal because the investigation regarding the incident is not over and there is no evidence of its responsibility in the crash and therefore Almaz-Antey cannot be punished for something it did not do.Recently the ECJ proposed to Gazprom Neft and DenizBank [7] to await the outcome of court decision in the Rosneft case so as to have a precedent in the interpretation of the provisions regarding the restrictive measures. Both companies have refused this proposal and requested that the court hearings proceed.Attempts to continue trading activitiesIn the meantime, while some companies are trying to dispute the sanctions in court, other companies try to avoid the limitations imposed by the restrictive measures by using third country intermediaries.The United States Government after having restricted trade with Russia, imposed a “presumption of denial” on licenses to export controlled goods and technology to Russia. An exporter must now request a license if he has knowledge or suspects that the products exported may be used by military end users or for military end uses in Russia.Considering that the violation of said restrictions carries both civil and criminal penalties, regardless if the exporter had knowledge of the ultimate destination of the goods or not, the US Government decided to publish a “Guidance on Due Diligence to Prevent Unauthorized Transshipment/Reexport of Controlled Items to Russia”.The Bureau of Industry and Security[8] believes that export controls must be a shared responsibility between the government and the exporters. This Guide emphasizes, in fact, the importance of the exporter’s duty to inquire about the end use, end user and ultimate destination of the controlled and dual use goods.The exporters should, in BIS’s opinion, look out for discrepancies in the purchases, such as a buyer ordering spare parts for an equipment that has never been purchased by that buyer.In fact, even though liability is absolute, the penalties are imposed only in cases of gross negligence or in cases when companies fail to make good faith efforts at compliance.It goes without saying that these kinds of circumstances are sometimes difficult to verify and therefore the exporters must be thorough in their due diligence. It is only thought proof that internal due diligence has been exercised that companies can hope to avoid sanction.With reference to the export control regime and the control of dual-use goods[9] the EU adopted the Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 of 5 May 2009. Originally, these provisions were adopted with the primary intent of driving EU’s innovation and competiveness on the global market.So the EU, like the  US, has imposed strict rules on export control of dual-use goods, requesting an authorization or license for the export of these items. The exporters are also required to keep detailed registers or records of their exports detailing all the relevant information, even, where known, the end-use and end-user of the dual-use items.[1] Article 215 TFEU: “1. Where a decision, adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union, provides for the interruption or reduction, in part or completely, of economic and financial relations with one or more third countries, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission, shall adopt the necessary measures. It shall inform the European Parliament thereof. 2. Where a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union so provides, the Council may adopt restrictive measures under the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities. 3. The acts referred to in this Article shall include necessary provisions on legal safeguards”.[2] Common Foreign and Security Policy[3] Внешэкономбанк – Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs[4] Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014; Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014; Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 and Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014.[5] A bank to be included in the sanction list must be owned (more than 50% of all the shares) and/or managed by the Russian Federation.[6] Sberbank’s shareholders are: Bank of Russia (50% + 1 share); Foreign legal entities (43,26%); Domestic legal entities (2,83%) and Private investors (3,91%).[7] Subsidiary of Sberbank[8] Organization responsible of ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system.[9] Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 defines  dual-use items as “items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.