# C_2006010EN.01001402.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo by order of that court of 19 October 2005 in the criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia Di Maggio and Salvatore Buccola

(Case C-397/05)

(2006/C 10/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Palermo (Palermo District Court) of 19 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia Di Maggio and Salvatore Buccola on the following questions:

| (1) | Does a national provision containing a prohibition on carrying on the activity of taking bets without a police authorisation, which is punishable as a criminal offence, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty and of the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 of the EC Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Does a national provision containing a prohibition on carrying on the activity of taking bets without a police authorisation, which is punishable as a criminal offence, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty and of the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 of the EC Treaty?

| (2) | Does the police authorisation referred to in Article 88 of the Italian Consolidated Law on Public Security (TULPS) satisfy all the conditions of the Court of Justice for justifying a restriction of the right of establishment? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Does the police authorisation referred to in Article 88 of the Italian Consolidated Law on Public Security (TULPS) satisfy all the conditions of the Court of Justice for justifying a restriction of the right of establishment?

| (3) | Is the criminal sanction laid down in Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 appropriate, proportionate and, above all, non-discriminatory as regards the proprietors of the Centri di Trasmissione Dati operating in Italy and associated with the bookmaker Stanley Ltd, established in Liverpool, despite the fact that the controls to which the latter are subject appear to be materially identical to those for Italian concessionaires, subject as they are to the requirement that they obtain the police licence, which, according to the Corte di Cassazione, is directed at preventing criminal infiltration of the sector of the supply and demand of gambling? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Is the criminal sanction laid down in Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 appropriate, proportionate and, above all, non-discriminatory as regards the proprietors of the Centri di Trasmissione Dati operating in Italy and associated with the bookmaker Stanley Ltd, established in Liverpool, despite the fact that the controls to which the latter are subject appear to be materially identical to those for Italian concessionaires, subject as they are to the requirement that they obtain the police licence, which, according to the Corte di Cassazione, is directed at preventing criminal infiltration of the sector of the supply and demand of gambling?

---