Brussels, 14/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - It came as a surprise to no one that the Commission has decided to launch infringement proceedings against Italy for its attitude over reforms of the system for operating concessions for the motorways in the country (decree 262/2006 of 3 October 2006 on the "Urgent Regulation on Taxation and Financial Matters") and the planned merger between Autostrade and Abertis (see, amongst others, EUROPE 9289). Concerned that the rules of the Treaty on the free movement of capital (article 56) and establishment rights (article 43) are possibly being violated, it sent a letter of formal notice to the Italian authorities on Tuesday. The Italian authorities now have two months to react in order to avoid the procedure moving into the next phase (reasoned opinion). The provisions in question are those under article 12 of the decree, concerning new rules on the revision of motorway toll charges and reinforced decision-making powers for ANAS, the Italian motorway regulatory authority. Although the Italian government appears inclined to abandon its idea of using a decree to limit voting rights for construction companies which are party to motorway concession contracts to 5% of capital when appointing board members, the Italian Parliament has still to give its blessing to the change, the Commission observes. For other elements of the new concession regime, article 12, paragraph 1, sets the dates for the entry into force of the "convenzione unica", and paragraph 2 lays down the principles to govern all new contracts. In the same way, paragraphs 6 and 7 state that should a concession-holder fail to agree to these new conditions, their concession contract will automatically be cancelled. In the view of the Commission, there is nothing to indicate that these provisions answer any political objectives, nor that the measures adopted can be justified by reasons of general interest. Given the risk of uncertainty, which may discourage investors, particularly in forthcoming negotiations for existing concession contracts, it feels that these provisions should therefore be considered to run counter to the principle of legal certainty. (ab)