1. Id. at para. 47; Id. at para. 53.
2. See Parking Brixen GmbH, supra note 30, para. 50; ANAV, supra note 30, para. 22; Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia, supra note 37, para. 76.
3. Sierra Buendia , supra note 12, at 287; such an interpretation would consequently mean that the original granting of exclusive rights (as opposed to subsequent granting of exclusive right) is not a “measure” within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU (which would have to be effected in accordance with the Treaty), unless the exclusive right is originally granted to a public undertaking, or to an undertaking already granted with a special right. However, that interpretation, giving the Member States almost absolute leeway in creating monopolies (so-called “Absolute Sovereignty Approach”: David Edward & Mark Hoskins, Article 90: Deregulation and EC Law. Reflections Arising From the XVI FIDE Conference, 32 Common Market Law Review 159, 159-160 (1995), is by no means correct.
4. See Bundesanstalt für den Güterfernverkehr, supra note 86, paras. 20-24; Centro Servizi Spediporto Srl, supra note 86, paras. 26-30; Criminal proceedings against Manuele Arduino, supra note 86, paras. 36-43; Federico Cipolla, supra note 55; Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte, supra note 55, paras. 48-52.
5. True, there are some authors who claim that the award of a public contract in accordance with public procurement rules cannot be treated as an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 106(1) TFEU, since such an award is not discretionary (Whish, supra note 18, at 220-221). But as it was already explained, the above-mentioned view cannot be accepted.