The main reason for requesting a Community initiative on IPPPs is the perceived lack of clarity of the rules governing in-house relations and - this is stressed in particular by contributors from the public side - the restrictive construction of the in-house exemption from public procurement law given in the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the "Teckal" case. Two contributors argue that the EC legislator has to take action, rather than leaving it to the ECJ to settle the issues, as the ECJ is considered not to be in a position to provide the necessary clarity. Another, more general justification for a Community initiative in the area of IPPPs is - according to various contributions - the need for transparent and competitive selection of private partners for these projects. One contribution argues that a Community initiative is needed because the variety of different national approaches on this issue distorts the Internal Market .
With regard to the need for a Community initiative in the area of IPPPs, certain contributions distinguish between cases where mixed capital entities are jointly established by public and private entities and cases where the shares of public companies are opened to private capital. Some contributors say that while, for the first category of IPPPs, concrete clarification at EC level is necessary, the second category of IPPPs should be the subject of an exchange of best practice or a reflection group. Another contributor, however, considers that specifically for the second category of IPPPs clarification has to be provided by means of a regulation.