As regards the content of an EC initiative on IPPPs, various public contributors call upon the EC legislator to define "in-house" more broadly than the ECJ did. Other contributors from the public side explain that the correct understanding of "in-house" should allow municipalities to entrust tasks considered to be a local public service to inter-communal structures without obliging them to call for tenders. According to one contribution, a broader interpretation of the in-house criterion would imply that ownership by the relevant contracting authority of a 50% capital share in the IPPP entity would qualify as control over that undertaking. Several contributors argue in favour of drafting "de-minimis rules" for the application of public procurement provisions to local PPPs. Others request the EC legislator to respect the subsidiarity principle when clarifying the notion of "in-house".
One contribution asks for clarification of the application of public procurement rules to IPPPs in general. Various other contributions highlight the need to require publication of public authorities' intention to choose a private partner for an IPPP. Some contributions favour a clearer definition of the status of the IPPP entity, others wish to see public authorities required to justify their recourse to IPPPs. A number of contributions demand equal access to subsidies and more generally the application of the EC Treaty principles to setting up IPPPs. Several contributions oppose compulsory "double tendering" for IPPPs - i.e. tendering to select a private partner for an IPPP followed by tendering for the award of a specific task.
Various contributions highlight the need to clarify the application to IPPPs of EC law principles other than those concerning the choice of a private partner. State aid rules and the free movement of capital (Article 56 of the EC Treaty) are mentioned several times in this context.