IPPPs and 'in-house relations'

34. Supports the Commission's efforts to take action in the field of IPPPs in view of the clear signs of existing legal uncertainty;

35. Acknowledges the fact that practitioners want clarity about the application of procurement law to the creation of public-private undertakings in connection with the award of a contract or concession, and calls on the Commission to provide the relevant clarifications at the earliest opportunity;

36. Does not believe that 'in-house relations' without award procedures should be further extended in scope as this would dispense certain sectors from the need to comply with internal market and competition rules;

37. Considers it necessary, in view of the transparency requirement and the ban on discrimination, for procurement law to be applied when an IPPP is set up and in the event of a transfer of a share to a private partner in connection with an IPPP, in so far as the act of setting it up or the transfer is related in time and substance to the assignment of a public contract;

38. Understands, in view of the proliferating case-law, the widespread legal uncertainty that has grown up as to the application of in-house criteria and therefore calls on the Commission to devise criteria, based on the current case-law of the Court of Justice, that establish a stable frame of reference for public authority decision-making, and to consider the possibility of incorporating these criteria into Community legislation;

39. Considers that a threshold value, however defined, for the minimum stake of a public contracting authority in an undertaking whose capital is held jointly with private partners would result in certain permanent protected stakes and that any limit put forward for discussion consequently poses problems;

40. Takes the view that, if the first invitation to tender for the establishment of a public-private undertaking has been precise and comprehensive, a further tendering procedure is unnecessary;

41. Calls for a more precise definition of the concept of 'similar control', which the organising public authority exercises over the service provider, particularly in cases where public-private undertakings provide, on behalf of the organising public authority and in connection with the performance of its tasks, services that are mainly funded or underwritten by the organising public authority;