Transferring the Authorization: how a comparative approach may help Italian Space Legislation

1. Introduction. License under Space Law

Outer Space is “free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind”.[1]

Then, why “authorizations” are needed?

Authorizations (otherwise labeled as “licenses”, “permits”, and so on) are the main administrative tools that States bear in compiling with the international obligations deriving upon them by the norms contained in the corpus iuris spatialis[2] (norms that, in some instances, has raised to the status of international customary law[3]). The licensing process typically involves, on one side, national administrative authorities with the power to grant such permits and, on the other side, non-governmental (“NGOs”) or private entities that want to carry out some activities related to the space. Under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty (hereinafter “OST”),[4] authorizing such entities is an obligation for the State of the latter’s jurisdiction.

The approach of many countries has been quite peculiar when defining their “power” over such NGOs or private companies since the States of “jurisdiction” would be considered internationally liable for their actions. Space is an incredibly challenging and dangerous ambit, even more considering the absolute liability clause of articles II and IV of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972 (hereinafter “LIAB”); this is a proper deviation and almost a unicum in the panorama of international law, in which “there is no consensus in favor of international liability of states without fault”.[6] At the same time, though, through authorization, States can have a deeper control and “continuous supervision”[7] over the mentioned operations, avoiding possible hazards, ensuring a certain level of due diligence, setting standards of safety, generational sustainability, and environmental protection.[8]
Some (wakeful) States have established a (more or less) coherent and complete national law regarding the various aspects of space activities, including licensing, Earth observation, launching of space objects, remote sensing, satellite broadcasting, and many more.[9] Other States, instead, have decided to follow a mosaic legal approach, establishing multiple legal sources for the various activities carried out under their jurisdiction. Moreover, States decide whether to grant a license only for specific space activities, i.e., remote Sensing, or issue a more “generic” license, covering different scopes.[10] Also, the criteria to obtain authorization vary greatly from country to country.[11]

This short paper will focus on a niche aspect of the national space laws, the topic of the transfer of license.

2. The Transfer of License. A Comparative Overview

“Individual states take individual approaches to the matter, making their own judgement on which activities they might be held responsible and/or liable for, and which activities they consequently aim to control in what manner.”[13]

The quoted sentence explains why a comparative approach is essential in this sector. The national space activities’ licensing systems are incredibly different from one to another, mirroring the specific aims and goals each country wants to achieve through the exploitation and use of space.[14] Since the present elaboration would like to give some practical suggestions, the focus would be on a proper technical and niche aspect of the national laws, namely the ‘transfer of license’.
First, “transfer” means “an act by virtue of which title of a property is voluntarily conveyed from one person to another”,[15] for free or under a specific payment; “license” is a “permission granted by a qualified authority permitting a Licensee to do something that would otherwise be prohibited”.[16]

Most national space legislations deal with the transfer of such. It is possible to draw at least three main international trends, which will be discussed now.

2.1 The 1st Group: States which allow for the transfer

The countries which have a national space law that, explicitly or implicitly, allow for the transfer of the license are (in alphabetical order)[17]:

• Australia[18]
  Possible with the approval of the responsible Ministry, after having given a written notice.
• Austria[19]
  Possible under the same provisions to obtain authorization, given by the Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technologies.
• Belgium[20]
  With the express permission of the responsible Ministry.
• Canada[21]
  Transfer of remote sensing License (only) with prior approval of the appropriate Ministry.
• Denmark[22]
  Transfer of “space Objects and Space Activities” with prior approval of the Ministry for High Education and Science.
• France[23]
  It is possible under almost the same provisions to obtain authorization; the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Finance is responsible for the authorization.
• Finland[24]
  Transfer of “Space Activities” (as well as Ownership) with prior approval of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment.
• Japan[25]
  Transfer of “business” is permitted under Article 10 (1) if the Transferor and the Transferee have obtained previous authorization from the Prime Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Cabinet Office Order.
• Luxembourg[26]
  Allowed with prior authorization of the Ministry, submitted jointly (Transferor and Transferee); moreover, the Transferee must fulfill the same provisions to obtain the authorization in the first place.
• New Zealand[27]
  Allowed with the approval of the responsible Ministry, that can impose further conditions.
• South Korea[28]
  Not explicitly but allows for “changes in permits” by the Ministry of Science and Technology, except for minor changes set by Presidential Decree.
• United Kingdom[29]
  It is necessary a written consent and the transferee must fulfil certain criteria and conditions, such as certain financial and technologies capabilities; in addition, the Transferee’s activities shall not be against UK’s national security and consistent with UK’s international obligations.
• United States of America[30]
  Complex procedure. The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) may allow the transfer of license if this action corresponds to the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

Putting aside some minor differences, some general tendencies can be delineated in the first group of States which allows license transfer.

First, basically all the systems require a previous clearance or approval by the same Authority or Ministry that had issued the license (or permit) in the first place. Many also provide that the authorization shall be granted under the same criteria of the “original” one (explicitly, Austria, France, and Luxembourg). Further conditions upon the transferee may be imposed in the UK, USA, and New Zealand. In a few cases (France, Luxembourg, and Japan) the prior approval must be submitted jointly, both by the transferor and transferee.

Lastly, the peculiar and problematic case of a ‘foreign transfer’, namely a transfer of license granted to an entity under the jurisdiction of a different State. It is problematic because, under the OST, the LIAB and the Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1976, (hereinafter “REG”)therefore, it would be also internationally liable for eventual damages deriving from those launches and objects. To avoid this eventuality, some States have put in place a system in case of ‘foreign transfer’: not only a previous clearance from the authorities is required but also a specific international agreement with the State of jurisdiction of the transferee, in order to take over the possible international liability of the first-licensing country. The countries which have adopted these provisions are Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and Japan. Oddly, no references have been made about such possibility in the US system. On a side note, the Luxembourgish space legislation seems the most well thoughtfully.

In conclusion, most of the countries that possess national space legislation allow for the transfer of the license, and the reasons lies into the economic possibilities deriving from the creation of a market of space permits. Outer Space is an incredibly hazardous environment; at the same time, though, it could become immensely profitable. With the entry barriers dropping by in the space sector,[32] many commercial private firms, soon being mostly start-ups and SMBs, will, statistically,[33] fail in the first couple of years of operation. Having the possibility to sell the license into a State’s regulated market must have been seen, on one side, as a way to avoid the total dispersion of human and capital resources; and on the other, a Pareto-optimal[34] solution to concentrate the same scarce resources toward capable and successful private entities.

2.2 The 2nd Group: States which do not allow for the transfer

The countries which have a national space law that do not allow for the transfer of the license are (in alphabetical order):

• China[35]
• (The) Netherlands[36]
  It is allowed, though, the merging, division and change of name of the License
• Russian Federation[37]

The reasons behind the choice of these three States regarding the non-transferability of license lies in the political willingness to avoid – at any cost – possible claims of liability deriving upon them by other members of the international community. With the transfer, especially in the case of ‘foreign transfer’, the chain of supervision over private firms’ activities could be hampered; these countries, within their national law, have opted-out from that eventuality. It must be also noted that The Netherlands considers the space authorizations granted intuitu personae, meaning that it is given to a specific person (physical or juridical) in virtue of his specific attributions, in order to carry out any space activities (the Dutch license is a generic one).

2.3 The 3rd Group: Intermediate.

Few words are due about a third, limited, group: States which allow only for the transfer of ownership of space objects. Indonesia[39] and Portugal,[40] in their national space law, prescribed the eventuality of such transfer, pursuant to the 8^th recommendation of UN Resolution 68/74 of 2013.[41] Such provisions generally prescribe that, with the object, also the deriving international liability must be transfer.

It is an “intermediate” group because the transfer of ownership is essentially different from the license’s one; nonetheless is a step forward if compared to the total non-transferability.

3. The case of Italy: a spacefaring nation

Despite being often internationally looked down upon, Italy is one of the leading countries when it comes to space activities. Founding Member of ESA, 3^rd largest annual contributor to its budget,[43] Italy has been a pioneering country in the human’s space endeavors toward the ‘Great Unknown’, with the first national activities dating back to 1959,[44] then canalized with the establishment, in 1988, of the National Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI).[45]

Italy also leads the space-export, with a share of 6.9% of the global market, a 4.1% share of total world registered space-patents, ranking eighth on a global scale,[46] and an RTA (Revealed Technology Advantage)[47] index above 2, among the highest on Earth. Italy is specialized in observation satellites, launchers, pressurized modules, and space debris removal technologies. Moreover, it is engaged in the most innovative and ambitious projects, including the Artemis Accords and Mars Sample Return projects, together with NASA.[48] Investments in space, until 2030,[49] derive mainly from national funds: € 4.7 billion from the “Strategic Plans for the Space Economy”, a half private half public capital venture; € 2.3 billion from Italy’s Recovery and Resilience Plan, mostly allocated toward 4 main activities: Earth Observation, Satcom, Space Factory and In-Orbiting Economy.[50] As stated by ISPI (Italian Institute for International Political Studies), at the 2022 ESA Industrial Policy Committee meeting, Italy has won a tantamount of € 1.6 billion, generating revenue for about € 800 million, over the ratio embodied into ESA’s geographical return principle.[51]

The Private sector is composed of about 200 private entities, 80% of which are SMBs, employing more than 7000 highly skilled persons, annually generating more than € 2 billion in revenues.[52]

3.1 Licensing in Italy, a bureaucratic maze

Given the impressive numbers expressed in the previous paragraph, people may think Italy would have a well-established, coherent, and complete national space legislation.

The (sad) truth is that Italy has never been able to accomplish such a result: to date, it still lacks a comprehensive legislation on space activities. Anyway, we will briefly discuss the Italian space licensing system and the peculiarities of its administrative law.

At present, if an Italian private firm wants to be authorized for carrying out space-related activities, it should obtain a license from the Inter-ministerial Committee for Policies Relating to Space and Aerospace Research according to under art. 4 (1,b) of the ASI’s Statute. In the case where the initial capital amounts to more than €500.000 (or if it has a shareholding equal to or greater than 50 percent of aforementioned share capital), a prior opinion from the Minister of Economy and Finances is required.

Although the procedure might seem quite straightforward, the lack of a comprehensive space legislation exposes Italian space businesses to a bureaucratic maze. Indeed, the license obtained by ASI would not allow to overcome other authorities, in cases of clash of “regulated activities”. When an activity transcends the strict space law ambit (i.e. Earth Observation), it may faces the regulatory and licensing power of other national authorities; for example, when privacy is at stake, the Italian Privacy Authority (Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali, GPDP) will “come and rescue”; in cases of satellite services, a license from the Communication Guarantee Authority (Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, AGCOM) would be necessary;[53] for suborbital flights, a license issued by the National Civil Aviation Authority (Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile, ENAC) is (likely to be) mandatory;[54] and so on.

The lack of legal clarity may vitally hamper the Italian Space private sector.

3.2 Licensing in Italy, between Authorization and Concession

Italian Administrative law is an unicum in the world because it distinguishes between 2 legal forms of Licensing.

Without entering too much in detail,[55] an Italian ‘Authorization’ is the faculty, granted by the Public Administration to the person (physical or juridical), to exercise a pre-existing right (this private legal situation is defined as ‘legitimate interest’). As stated by Ugo Mattei: “From the American point of view, legitimate interests can sometimes be compared to ‘privileges’ and sometimes […] may be seen as an issue of standing”.[56] In this case, this ‘legitimate interest’ is understood as “waiting for expansion”, toward a full, enforceable right. Authorizations remove a limit set by the legal system, an obstacle to the free exercise of that right. Though, ‘Authorization’ cannot be understood only as the removal of a limit, but also as the elimination of a prohibition always placed by law on the exercise of a generally prohibited activity.

The ‘Concession’ consists of an administrative provision with which the Public Administration attributes ex novo ‘full rights’ to the addressee, thus differing from the authorization, in which the individual right (‘legitimate interest’) pre-exists ex ante for the private individual.
The recovery of the ‘Concession’ on a private level, in Italy, is by far the result of European legislation.[57] The ‘Concession’ creates a lasting relationship between the private individual and the granting administration, comprised of (almost) reciprocal rights and obligations.

The current Italian space licensing system is based on ‘Authorization’.[58]

With that in mind, what forms will have the License in the future Italian Space Legislation? Would it be an ‘Authorization’ or a ‘Concession’?

3.3 Italian Law Project n. 732, 2022: a critical overview

On December 23^rd, 2022, On. Zucconi,[59] a member of the Italian Parliament, presented a project of national space legislation,[60] now undergoing discussions at the Commissione X (Attività Produttive, Commercio e Turismo).[61] This may be an important step forward for the space community in Italy; thus, a critical overview focused on the topic of the present paper – the nature and the transfer of license – is necessary due.

Generally speaking, the project seems solid, coherent, and in line with other European legislation on the subject; it sets the requirements to obtain the license, both financials and technical, the authority which can grant them, the eventual responsibility (ex 2050 c.c., responsibility for carrying out dangerous activities) and the possible sanctions. Nonetheless, the powers vested to the Authority (the so-called Comitato Interministeriale per le politiche relative allo spazio e alla ricerca aerospaziale), are by far too extensive, impoverishing the role of the appropriate Ministers (Ministro delle Imprese e del Made in Italy and the Ministero della difesa), which, in the Italian constitutional hierarchia, are supposed to be apical institution. ASI’s role is also demoted. Another complaint is about the lack of a specific (minimum) amount for the necessary insurance, that is left to be determined, often case by case, to the Minister mentioned above.[62] Lastly, the project normed the transfer of ownership and control (Article 3) but no mention whatsoever is made about the possible transfer of license.

In this law project, the license is understood as ‘Authorization’, as defined in the previous paragraph. Therefore, the relationship between the Authority and the licensee is framed among the preventive activity of checking the requirements, the issue of the license, and a generic activity of subsequent vigilance, without establishing a stable relation.[63] But then, in Articles 7 (n. 6), 8, and 11, the project grants the Authority extensive supervision power, such as inspections, directive acquisition of documentation, the right to obtain periodic reports on the licensee’s activities, and so on. This supervision is something that goes far beyond simple vigilance and does not resemble the legal appearance of a typical ‘Authorization’.

4. How Comparative law may lead Italy’s development of future space legislation. Conclusion

Italy needs national space legislation to sustain its internal growth in this New Space Race.
When it comes to creating something new, such as a regulatory framework, Comparative law can be the key element, not only to avoid the same mistakes other countries have made but also to solve the intricate issues emerging from their own national legal system.
In the words of Geoffrey Samuel: “Comparative law is [also, ed.] dedicated to fashioning transnational harmonization texts or ‘better solution’ rules” [64].
This brief paper aims to present those ‘better solutions’ applicable to the Italian case.
In a very recent sentence [65], Italian judges have established that ‘Authorizations’, having been granted intuitu personae, are not transferable.
Instead, for ‘Concessions’, the alienation is possible, given certain conditions [66].
Following the current set of rules, the Italian licensing system, albeit lacking a national space law, is dominated by ‘Authorization’ and will fall under the 2^nd group of countries, as settled supra. Within this group, Italy, having a liberal market attractive for the private equity sector and focusing on the intuit personae requirement, will be mainly accosted to the Netherlands.
On the other hand, with the characteristics highlighted in Chapter 3, the Mediterranean Nation should at least consider the business opportunity deriving with the transfer of License. As noted, the Italian space market is composed mostly of SMBs; for the Italian Republic, the afore market would be a great opportunity because it will allocate scarce resources where they fit the best, even more considering the overperformance of Italy at the last ESA Industrial Policy Committee meeting (supra, chapter 3).

Lastly, Italy is obviously bound by the provisions of Article VI of the OST, therefore it must ensure authorization and continuous supervision over its national private actors’ space activities. If we focus on the ‘continuous supervision’ requirement, and then we compare it to the Italian licensing methodology, ‘Concession’ would be the only proper tool to ensure it.

***

[1] Article I, par. 2 of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967 (also known as Outer Space Treaty. Hereinafter “OST”).

[2] The name refers to a series of Unite Nations Treaties, signed between 1967 and 1979, regarding the codification of Outer Space by the International Community. For further insights, UNOOSA, Space Law Treaties and Principles, https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties.html

[3] “The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is […] most widely recognized as throughout representing customary international law” in FRANS G. VON DER DUNK, Advanced Introduction to Space Law, Elgar, 2020, p. 16.

[4] See note 2.

[6] A. BOYLE, International law and the Liability for Catastrophic Environmental Damage. Introductory Remarks, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 105, Harmony and Dissonance in International Law, Cambridge University Press, p. 424. See also Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n, Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising Out of Hazardous Activities, GAOR A/61/10, paras. 51–67, 2006.

[7] Article VI OST.

[8] “States will wish to exercise the control inherent in the concept of authorisation amongst others over those entities which by their activities may incur the international liability of those respective states” in F. G. VON DER DUNK, The Origins of Authorisation: Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and International Space Law, Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications. 69, 2011, p. 9.

[9] “After a long hiatus, the world is entering a new space race” in G. H. REYNOLDS, J. L. OUTTEN, Pulsed nuclear space propulsion and international law: some preliminary observations, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 87, summer 2022, p. 445.

[10] See SECURE WORLD FOUNDATION, Handbook for New Actors in Space, 2017 Ed., p. 71.

[11] Including financial means, technical requirements, certain environmental and/or safety standards to cope, periodical solvency checks, obtaining insurance, etc.

[13] It continues: “This obviously raises, at least in the European context, the question to which extent a measure of harmonization of some key aspects of national authorization” in F. G. VON DER DUNK, The Origins of Authorisation, ibidem, p. 14.

[14] In the development of the present chapter and for further insights, see A. D. KERKONIAN, Space Regulation in Canada: Past, Present and Potential. The case for a Comprehensive Canadian Space Law, Springer, 2021; A. FROEHLICH, V. SEFFINGA, National Space Legislation: a Comparative and Evaluative analysis, V ed., Springer, 2018.

[15]Definition by CORNELL UNIVERSITY, WEX, Legal Information Institute, last update November 2021, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/transfer

[16]Definition by CORNELL UNIVERSITY, WEX, ibidem, last update June 2020, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/license

[17] In the present elaboration few countries with a national space law were left out for reasons of space. Moreover, the choice was also driven by the will to focus on States with a certain degree of effort and history in engaging with Space exploitation and use.

[18] Art. 25, Launches and Return act 2018.

[19] Sec. 8, Austrian OST act; sec. 8, Austrian Explanatory Memorandum.

[20] Art. 13, Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Operations or Guidance of Space Objects; since 2022, it allows also the transfer of registered space objects (Royal Implementing Decree, art. 5(2), 2022)

[21] Art. 9-16, Remote Sensing Space System Act, (2005, amended in 2007).

[22] Sec. 7, art. 8, The Danish Outer Space Act (act n. 409 of 11 May 2016). For the transfer to a foreign Transferee, the Ministry asks for additional requirements in order to take over the Danish international liability.

[23] Art. 3, French Act on Space Operations. The request must be presented by both parties (sec. 14(1), French Decree on Authorization).

[24] Sec. 11, Act on Space Activities, n. 63/2018). For the transfer to a foreign Transferee, the Minister asks for a previous agreement in order to take over the Finnish international liability.

[25]Foreign Transfer is allowed with an advance notification to the Prime Minister (Art. 10(1) and 26(2) of the Act on Launching Artificial Satellites and Managing Satellites (Satellite Act, Act No. 76 of 2016.)

[26] Art. 12, Space Activities and Amending Law (2020). For the transfer to a foreign Transferee, the Minister asks for additional requirements in order to take over the Luxembourg International liability.

[27]Art. 53-54, the Outer Space and High-Altitude Activities Act, (2017).

[28] Under art. 11 of the Space Developments Promotion Act.

[29] Allowed under art. 15, par. 1-2, Space Industry Act, 2018.

[30] 47 US Code 310 – License Ownership Restriction, sec. D). No references to the “foreign Transfer” have been made yet.

[32] “The shift to fast, affordable and commercial space activities is dramatic” in T. MASSON-ZWAAN, M. HOFMANN, Introduction to Space Law, 4^th edition, Wolters Kluwer, 2019, p. 157; R. BRUKARDT, How will the Space Economy change the World?, McKinsey & Co, November 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/how-will-the-space-economy-change-the-world

[33] About 90% of start-ups fail. For insight, EMBROKER TEAM, 106 Must-Know Start-up Statistics for 2023, EMBROKER, 11^th January 2023, https://www.embroker.com/blog/startup-statistics/

[34]In Game Theory, “a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off”. Pareto Efficiency, Wikipedia, last checked 24^th April 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

[35] Chinese Order on Interim Measures on Launch Permits, sec. 12.

[36] Dutch Space Activities Act, sec. 8; Explanatory Memorandum to the Dutch Space Activities, art. 20.

[37] No. 104 – Statute on Licensing Space Operations, sec. 21.

[39] Art. 78, Law on Space Activities, 21/2013. Liability must be transferred with the ownership.

[40] Art. 17, Decree Law 16/2019, Legal Regime of Access to and Exercise of Space Activities.

[41] Often referred to as “The National Space Legislation Resolution”.

[43] € 680.2 million, ESA, ESA Budget 2022, ESA Official website, 18.01.2022, https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/01/ESA_budget_2022

[44] With the creation of the Commission for Space Research, a branch of the National Council of Research.

[45] ASI, Chi Siamo, ASI Official page, https://www.asi.it/lagenzia/chi-siamo/

[46] INTESA SANPAOLO, Report sulla Space Economy, data from 2013 to 2019, 16.12.2021, https://group.intesasanpaolo.com/it/research/area-media/macro-italia/2021/space-economy-italia

[47] Under OECD, “it is an index which provides an indication of the relative specialisation of a given country in selected technological domains”. For further details, OECD, The Space Economy in Figures: How Space Contributes to the Global Economy, OECD-Library, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/c5996201-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/c5996201-en&_csp_=ffe5a6bbc1382ae4f0ead9dd2da73ff4&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book

[48] MAECI, Quanta Italia c’è nello Spazio, Ministerial webpage, January 2022, https://www.esteri.it/it/sala_stampa/archivionotizie/interviste/2022/01/quanta-italia-ce-nello-spazio-airpress/

[49] The global contriubution until that date will be of € 18,2 billions, as stated by ASI, Ministeriale Esa, dall’Italia oltre 3 miliardi di euro, Media.inaf, November 2022, https://www.media.inaf.it/2022/11/23/cm22/

[50] MAECI, Quanta Italia c’è nello Spazio, Ibidem.

[51] A. GILI, D. FANCIULLI, A Strategy for the EU and Italy in the Space, ISPI, 10 December 2020, https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/strategy-eu-and-italy-space-28632,

[52] S. BRUNSWICK, From Galileo to the Lunar Gateway: Mapping Italy’s Growing Space Industry, Space News, April 2023, https://spacenews.com/from-galileo-to-the-lunar-gateway-mapping-italys-growing-space-industry/; MAECI, Quanta Italia c’è nello Spazio, Ibidem.

[53] Authority for the Security of Communication, Decision 131/01/CONS.

[54] National Entity for Civil Aviation. How to license Suborbital flights is a concern of many States.

[55] For insights J. S. LENA, U. MATTEI, Introduction to Italian law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2002; also (in Italian), M. CLARICH, Manuale di Diritto Amministrativo, Il Mulino, chapter III, 2021.

[56] J. S. LENA, U. MATTEI, Introduction to Italian law, ibidem, p. 148.

[57] Directive “Bolkestein”, 2006/123/EC.

[58] Art. 4(1,b) of the ASI’s Statute.

[59] Camera dei Deputati, Official Website, https://www.camera.it/leg18/29?shadow_deputato=307142&idLegislatura=18

[60] A.C. 732, 23^rd December 2022.

[61]  Cfr. here: https://www.camera.it/leg19/1100?tab=1&shadow_organo_parlamentare=3510&id_tipografico=10

[62] Ministro delle Imprese e del Made in Italy.

[63] M. CLARICH, Manuale di Diritto Amministrativo, Il Mulino, III ed., 2017, p. 190.

[64] G. SAMUEL, Interdisciplinarity and Legal Scholarship: Are Comparatists in a Lonely Place?, The Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 17, IS. 2, 2022, p. 539.

[65] TAR Puglia, Lecce, Section II, 24.03.2023, n. 394.

[66] Cfr. Article 76, n. 9, D.Lgs 50/2016; moreover, on the subject, in Italian, D. D’AMICO, Natura giuridica e riparto di giurisdizione delle concessioni pubbliche: in particolare, delle concessioni di beni pubblici, Il Diritto Amministrativo, https://www.ildirittoamministrativo.it/Natura-giuridica-e-riparto-di-giurisdizione-delle-concessioni-pubbliche-in-particolare-concessioni-beni-pubblici-Daniela-Damico/stu735