Judgment No. 17620 of 2024: Clarifications on the Determination of the Fee for Mineral Water Concessions

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 17620 of June 26, 2024, offers important insights for operators in the mineral water concession sector. The central issue concerns the method of determining the fee owed for the concession of mineral waters, as established by Article 13 of the Provincial Law of Bolzano No. 7 of 2005. The Court reiterated that it is not possible to distinguish between the concession fee and the additional tariff component, a crucial aspect for the management of concessions at the local level.

The Regulatory Framework

The Provincial Law of Bolzano No. 7 of 2005 regulates concessions for the use of mineral waters, defining the methods for calculating the fee. In particular, Article 13 stipulates that the fee must be determined in a way that ensures a fair compensation for the use of water resources. However, in the past, there had been divergent interpretations regarding the possibility of distinguishing between the concession fee and additional amounts related to environmental tariffs.

The Decision of the Court of Cassation

In general. The methods of determining the fee owed for the concession of mineral waters, referred to in Article 13 of the Provincial Law of Bolzano No. 7 of 2005 (in the applicable temporal formulation), do not allow for a distinction between the concession fee in the strict sense and the additional tariff component. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Superior Court of Public Waters (TSAP) and, deciding on the merits, declared that the sum requested by the Executive of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano from the concessionaire company based on a supposed distinction between the concession fee and the "environmental tariff component" was not due).

The Court of Cassation thus annulled the decision of the Superior Court of Public Waters (TSAP), establishing that the methods of determining the fee do not allow for a distinction between the concession fee and the additional tariff component. This clarification is fundamental not only for the specific case but also for the public concession sector in general, where transparency and clarity of the rules are essential to avoid disputes.

Implications for Mineral Water Concessions

The implications of the ruling are manifold and concern various aspects:

  • Regulatory clarity: The ruling helps clarify the methods for calculating the fee, making the process more transparent for concessionaire companies.
  • Prevention of disputes: With greater clarity, the risk of legal disputes between local authorities and concessionaire companies is reduced.
  • Recognition of the unity of the fee: The Court emphasized that the fee must be considered as a single entity, thus facilitating the management of concessions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 17620 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater clarity and certainty in the sector of concessions for the use of mineral waters. The distinction between the concession fee and the additional tariff component, which had been the subject of disputes, has been definitively excluded by the Court of Cassation, favoring a more efficient management of water resources. It is essential that the competent authorities and concessionaire companies take note of these indications to ensure the correct application of the rules and a sustainable management of mineral waters.

Bianucci Law Firm