I’m giving here the text of the interview I had with la Repubblica on the topic of Autostrade/Abertis.

ADP: For me, the issue of the Autostrade-Abertis agreement was an investigation and a process that was closed with the decision taken in August. If someone wants to reopen the “case” and examine other proposals we’ll have a look and we will decide. But for now I don’t see what else is new.

R: You’re not worried that there’ll be a possible decision from the EU?ADP: The investigation being carried out by the EU relates to competition and the internal market. It has nothing to do with the decisions that have been taken in August by my Ministry and that of the Economy.

R: And what’s the decision about then?ADP: As we have explained many times, the decision relates to the request for the passage of the concession. On the basis of the norms fixed for the privatisation, it cannot be given to a company in which constructors are present. It’s a norm that was agreed at that time with Europe to avoid the conflict of interests and it is in force now and we have the duty to make sure it is respected.

R: So you haven’t blocked the merger between Autostrade and Abertis?
ADP: Not at all. The merger in itself is not relevant. We have simply acted taking into account the law on the issue of the concession and its passing to a third party on the basis of the norms fixed at the time of privatisation. If someone wants to change that they can open another investigation and decide on the basis of new regulations. But at the moment that’s the law and it’s the duty of a Minister to apply it.

R: Blocking the passage of the concession in fact makes it impossible to make the agreement. Is it not possible to change the law?ADP: Perhaps, but it is a question that needs to be examined on the basis of another investigation. And then there’s always on the agenda, the question of fixing new norms that govern the system of motorway concessions and the mechanisms for controls and penalties.

R: That is?ADP: It’s not possible to go on with a mechanism that doesn’t have controls and measures in place to protect the taxpayer. If, for example, someone tells me that 3,000,000,000 Euro of investments have not gone ahead because the local authorities blocked the authorisation, will I or not have the availability of a norm that allows me to say to that concessionary: OK, but the money in the meantime has to be put into a protected fund as a guarantee that this will go ahead? And then there’s the issue of sanctions.

R: Do those have to be revisited as well? Are they not adequate?
ADP: Yes in a certain way, because today, the only tool in the hands of whoever is controlling is the revocation of the concession. And in certain cases that is a blunt instrument as it is an exaggeration.