COMPETITION PROTECTION IN THE TOURISM SECTOR IN ITALY 347 decree 1/2012, in order to challenge the law before the Council for the violation of articles 41 and 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution34. The Authority expressed a similar principle in the opinion adopted on one Friuli Venezia Giulia Region’s law. In this circumstance, the Authority stated that the time limitation for opening and closing the agency, as well as the required presence of a technical director, contrasted with the national and communitarian principles on competition35. 3.7. Finally, with regard to point iii), many of the Authority interventions, in the past, expressed its contrary opinion on laws, regulations and local agreements that discriminated between tourist guides according to the different territorial area in which they had obtained their qualification – which should be considered valid across the entire nation36. In particular, one intervention examined a decision by the Council of Mantova that reduced by 25% the fees for tourist buses, but only if their passengers were accompanied by a qualified touristic guide, listed in the specific register kept by the province of Mantova. The Authority highlighted how applying discounts to tourist bus services if they were booked through local tour guides discriminated against qualified tourist guides who were registered in different areas. In fact, tour operators or tourist groups would be encouraged to choose local guides as the only way to benefit from such a discount37. ICA has repeatedly pointed out that this preferential treatment is not justified by any particular need for community protection. Moreover, it produced an unjustified segmentation of the national market, which contrasts with the principle of liberalisation introduced by the state legislator with article 3 of the law 6 August 2013, no. 97 (AS 1673 meeting of 27 May 2020). The Authority, in a report of 31 July 2019, pursuant to article 21 of law no. 287/90, formulated some observations regarding the anticompetitive effects on 34 ICA Opinion, AS1596, 29 may 2019, in Bull. no. 27/2019. 35 See the opinion of the Authority no. AS1353, 2 February 2017, in Bull. no. 9/2017. 36 See the reports AS1635, 14 January 2020, in Bull. no. 5/2020 and AS1607, 31 July 2019, in Bull. 33/2019. still on the subject, see AS1549, 6 December 2018, in Bull. no. 48/2018; AS1584, 6 December 2018, in Bull. no. 48/2018 and AS1339, 21 December 2016, in Bull. no. 48/2016. 37 ICA Opinion, AS1673, 27 May 2020, in Bull. no. 24/2000.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==