On 7 July 2011, Advocate General Cruz Villalon gave an opinion on a case (SIA Normal-A C-348/10) concerning the definition of “service concession” in relation to a contract for operating public bus services. The contract was awarded as a service concession by a district council in Latvia in late August 2009. The case came before the European Court of Justice on a preliminary ruling over whether the contract should have been treated as a service contract rather than a concession. Essentially, the difference is that for a public contract, consideration is paid directly to the service provider but with a concession, the consideration consists, either alone or in part, in the right to exploit the service. In this instance, the transport provider received remuneration through payments made by the users of its bus services. Generally, such an arrangement would be treated as service concessions. However, in this particular instance, the economic risk which the transport provider undertook was limited by national regulation and in addition, the Council agreed to compensate the service provider for any losses related to service delivery. Consequently, in the Advocate General’s opinion, where a service provider did not in fact accept risk in the contract it would be a public service contract rather than a concession. He indicated that it would be a matter for the national court to assess whether as a matter of fact there were any residual elements of risk transferred to the operator which negated the assumption that it was a service contract.