The Accounts Chamber concluded that the privatization of ANA did not protect public interests

The Court of Audit concluded that the privatization of ANA, which occurred in 2013, failed to protect the public interest due to failure to meet its objectives, such as minimizing the government’s exposure to execution risks.

“Taking into account the applicable legal regime and the concession agreements for the provision of public airport services signed with the Portuguese state, the privatization of ANA did not protect the public interest due to the inconsistency with its objectives,” the audit report carried out by ANA said. Court of Auditors (TdC) to the privatization of ANA, to which Lusa had access today.

The sale of 100% of the capital of ANA Aeroportos à Vinci was initiated in 2012 and completed in 2013 by the PSD/CDS-PP government led by Pedro Passos Coelho, as part of a privatization package that also included CTT, REN or TAP. in the latter case, it was later partially repealed by the next PS government (with parliamentary support of PCP, BE and PEV) led by António Costa.

At that time, Portugal became the subject of a bailout program agreed between the troika and the government.

According to the TdC audit report on the privatization of ANA, the rapporteur of which was Judge Consultant José Manuel Quellas and which was approved on December 21, “the materialization of the main risks identified” leads to the conclusion that “the exposure of the Portuguese state to the execution risks associated with the “sale process”” without guaranteeing that the framework of this process will fully protect national interests.”

TdC also concluded that “the financial return from the sale of shares representing ANA’s share capital was not maximized” and “there was no enhancement of ANA’s competitive position, growth and efficiency for the benefit of the aviation sector, Portuguese civil society, the national economy and airport users structures under the control of the ANA.”

Last January, TdC President José Tavares told parliamentary hearings that the institution planned to submit to ANA two audit reports requested by the Assembly of the Republic, one on the privatization of airport management. company in the first half of the year and another to manage the company until the end of 2023.

The purpose of the audit was to examine, taking into account the current legislation and the signed concession agreements, whether the privatization of ANA protected the public interest by achieving its objectives, which were “maximizing financial returns”, “strengthening the competitiveness, growth and efficiency of ANA for the benefit of the Portuguese civil aviation sector, the national economy and users of ANA-managed airport facilities” and “minimizing government exposure to execution risks.”

The audit was interrupted between June 2020 and November 2021 “due to situations of conflict of interest on the ANAC Board of Directors.” [Autoridade Nacional da Aviação Civil]“contrary to what was recommended by the Court to the Government”, and because of the pandemic, which forced TdC to prioritize other reviews.

The Accounts Chamber believes that the privatization of ANA violated the law because it was carried out without a preliminary assessment

The Court of Auditors (TdC) concluded that the privatization of ANA violated the law because it was carried out without prior assessment and without calculating the base price, requirements that ensure greater transparency and competition.

“An examination of this evidence [os documentos disponibilizados pelo Governo sobre a venda] shows that ANA was privatized without prior valuation and without calculating an appropriate reference price, without complying with the applicable legal conditions, without subjecting the process to one of the requirements that ensured “greater transparency and competition in line with European best practice.” institutions, contrary to what was announced,” says the Audit Chamber (TdC) audit report on the privatization of ANA, which Lusa accessed today.

For TdC, “the urgency of completing privatization led to the initiation and approval of the process without all the necessary conditions for its regularity, transparency and fairness (equality of opportunity for all potential investors), as well as the maximization of its financial return.” “.

Among these missing conditions, TdC noted, were a general legal framework for the concession, the creation of a special commission to oversee the process, the conclusion of concession contracts, the assessment of the ANA, full ownership of the land allocated to the concession (Lisbon City Council) and the integration of Madeira airports.

TdC also noted that “the state was slow to approve a ‘regime for the protection of critical strategic assets guaranteeing national defense and security, as well as the security of the country’s supply of services fundamental to the national interest’, but quickly promoted the ANA privatization process without this legislative support “

For this institution, the state decided to sell ANA entirely “in an unfavorable context (urgent, recessionary situation), while most countries of the European Union maintained equity participation in airport management enterprises.”

ANA does not agree with most of the conclusions of the Accounts Chamber on privatization

According to a statement included in the audit report to which Lusa had access, ANA Aeroportos disagreed with most of the Court of Audit’s (TdC) considerations on privatization regarding contractual imbalances favoring the private sector.

“ANA indicates that it does not take into account most of the considerations and statements made, particularly in relation to the (alleged) imbalance in concession contracts in favor of the private sector and in particular in relation to airport taxes and concession revenues,” the statement said. TdC on December 7, signed by ANA Chairman José Luis Arnault and Executive President Thierry Ligonier.

The audit was requested by the Assembly of the Republic and its purpose was to verify, in the light of current legislation and signed concession agreements, whether the privatization of ANA protects the public interest through the achievement of its objectives, which were to “maximize financial returns”, “strengthen competitiveness, growth and the effectiveness of ANA for the benefit of the Portuguese civil aviation sector, the national economy and the users of ANA-managed airport facilities”, as well as “minimizing the State’s exposure to the risk of execution”.

In its statement of TdC’s findings, included in the report of consulting judge José Manuel Quelhas, the ANA refuted “all the arguments put forward” in the document that “the down payment did not prove to be a financial benefit for the state and that it would mean a reduction in the price of privatization.”

The da Vinci airport manager also stressed that the concession agreement signed with the state falls under an exception to the public-private partnership (PPP) regime “as it is a concession granted by the state on the basis of a legal diploma. […] and the concession agreement was signed with an organization that at that time had exclusively state capital.”

Regarding the lack of strengthening of competitiveness, growth and efficiency in airport management highlighted by TdC, ANA also refuted this understanding, noting that from 2014 to date, traffic at airports under its management has increased from 32 million people to 56 million passengers, ” growing at 6.3% year-over-year, with traffic on the ANA network expected to reach approximately 66 million passengers in 2023, according to estimates recorded this year.

The airport manager stressed that its positive results over the past decade have resulted in additional tax revenues for the state and that it will pay €8.5 million in 2023 under a revenue-sharing arrangement with the state.

Regarding the existence of a closed monopoly, the company stressed that the privatization process “has not resulted in any change in the purpose of the airport public services concession attributed to ANA, as a set of airports that were previously concessioned by ANA.”

The airport manager complained about the “impossibility of deeper analysis” [ao relatório] within the short period provided, even if extended, and the consequent incompleteness of the pleadings” and expressed “his availability for any clarification or additional information.”

For its part, Parpública, in a contradiction signed by the chairman of the board of directors José Realinho de Matos, rejected the fact that ANA was privatized without a prior assessment, as TdC believes, insisting that the two assessments were carried out six months apart. one from CCA and the other from BIG.

The public also does not accept the conclusion that Da Vinci’s offer was overvalued “because it is contrary to the very nature, logic, objectives and rules established for a privately negotiated sale transaction structured in several stages.”

Regarding the discrepancy in the dates of the documents sent to Parpública, identified by the TdC, the public asset manager “rejects, admitting that it has no explanation for the error” caused by the documentary system used and stressed that it “presented in good quality.” “Believe, a possible explanation will occur more than 10 years from the date on which the relevant documents were received or submitted.”