Skip to main content

ASECAP report details division of concession risks in EU

ASECAP, the association of European tolling companies, has published a report which outlines the challenges facing authorities and tolling companies in the European Union in complying with the Directives 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU. The new directives come into force in April 2016 and refine and strengthen the definition of a concession and establish procurement rules for contracting authorities in respect of public contracts. One of the key areas in defining a concession is that the concessionaire must b
April 1, 2015 Read time: 2 mins
486 ASECAP, the association of European tolling companies, has published a report which outlines the challenges facing authorities and tolling companies in the 1816 European Union in complying with the Directives 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU.

The new directives come into force in April 2016 and refine and strengthen the definition of a concession and establish procurement rules for contracting authorities in respect of public contracts. One of the key areas in defining a concession is that the concessionaire must be exposed to risks of making a loss and the report outlined the current situation in the various EU member states.

ASECAP members collectively manage 48,000km of roadways in 21 countries including half of the EU’s 28 member states, and the report considers the risks concessions face under four headings: political and legal, economic and financial, construction related, and further risks.

It focuses in particular on how these risks are currently distributed in nine EU countries. These range from Austria, where the state-owned concessionaire 750 ASFINAG shoulder all the risks in every category to Spain where the authorities retain the liability for half of the 16 identified risks.

Speaking at a conference about the new regulations, Joanna Szychowska, head of public procurement legislation unit at DG Market said, “Many countries did not admit they were passing concessions and as they were not calling it by its proper name it was very easy to escape rules and obligations.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Road safety systems implementation needs legislation
    February 27, 2012
    A few years back, as part of ongoing efforts to better myself, I took to reading the literary classics. I
  • Standardise global ITS protocols to enable interoperability
    January 26, 2012
    ITS America has a new chief technology officer. ITS International caught up with Nu Rosenbohm at this year's World Congress to gather his thoughts on the main challenges at home and abroad
  • ITS instrumental in reducing Texan congestion
    September 4, 2018
    ITS projects in the Houston area have seen costs crunched – and even a system failure has proved valuable in analysing performance. David Crawford reports on developments in the Lone Star state Savings by Texan public agencies are major factors in the recent ITS Texas awards, recognising beneficial initiatives in bridge strike prevention and traffic intersection control. In the first, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)’s Houston District, covering the state’s most populous city and its surround
  • US adopts automated enforcement… gradually
    March 4, 2014
    The US automated enforcement market is in rude health as the number of systems and applications continues to grow and broaden. Jason Barnes reports. Blessed and cursed – arguably, in equal measure – with a constitution which stresses the right to self-expression and determination, the US has had a harder journey than most to the more widespread use of automated traffic enforcement systems. In some cases, opposition to the concept has been extreme – including the murder of a roadside civil enforcement offici