On an alleged infringement of competition law by the Apulia regional authorities. 

The petitioner indicates that a serious breach of competition rules involving a tendering procedure for building works has given rise to a long-standing legal dispute with the regional authorities, involving a number of attempts by the petitioner to have the procedure invalidated by the administrative court. Having first ascertained that the tendering procedure was a breach of criminal law (see ‘Information’1(1), the petitioner lodged a number of complaints with the Apulia regional authorities in a bid to have their original invitation to tender cancelled and replaced by a procedure compliant with fair competition rules. In the face of persistent inaction by the regional authorities, the petitioner lodged an administrative appeal to the Council of State (see ‘Information’ 1(2)), which twice ruled in his favour, in 2015 and 2017 respectively. In the meantime, the regional authorities persistently refused to cancel the flawed tendering procedure and issue a fresh invitation to tender, on the grounds that, on the date of the first Council of State ruling, it would have been too costly to start the building work again from scratch (see ‘Information’ 1(3)). Despite its two judgments ordering the regional authorities to cancel the tendering procedure and take the necessary remedial action, the dispute was referred to the Council of State for a third time (see ‘information’ 1(4)). However, the third judgment (5 June 2018) differed in part from the previous ones, in that the Council of State, noting that the building is almost completed did not order the demolition thereof, let alone a new tendering procedure (see ‘Information’ 1(5)). In its final ruling (28 May 2019), it also denied the signatory entitlement to damages on the grounds that the works were already at a point of no return (see ‘Information’ 1(6)). Finally, in support of his claim, the petitioner refers to the case law of the EU Court of Justice, requiring Member States to make good any damages resulting from a breach of EU law, in this case Article 101 TFEU and Directive 2004/18 laying down rules on public works contracts (see ‘Information’ 2.1), in so far as they derive from a decision of a court adjudicating at last instance - the Council of State. He points out that all the conditions laid down by the Court (see ‘Information 2(2)) are fulfilled in this case. He accordingly calls on the EU to initiate proceedings for infringement of the Treaty and secondary legislation regarding free competition, as well as Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a fair trial.