# C_2019112EN.01002302.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2018 — Stanleyparma Sas, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

(Case C-788/18)

(2019/C 112/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanleyparma Sas, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza (Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly those bookmakers jointly with their national intermediaries, liable to the single tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of D.Lgs. 23.12.1998 n. 504 (Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998), as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Legge di Stabilità 2011 (Italian Stability Law 2011)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza (Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly those bookmakers jointly with their national intermediaries, liable to the single tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of D.Lgs. 23.12.1998 n. 504 (Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998), as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Legge di Stabilità 2011 (Italian Stability Law 2011)?

| 2. | Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza (Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and not the national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of State-licensed bookmakers involved in the same activity, liable to the single tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza (Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and not the national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of State-licensed bookmakers involved in the same activity, liable to the single tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011?

| 3. | Do Articles 52 and 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation enshrined in Article 1(644)(g) of L. 190/2014 (Law No 190/2014), which requires national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly those bookmakers jointly with their national intermediaries, to pay the single tax on betting provided for in Legislative Decree No 504/1998, on a flat-rate taxable amount corresponding to three times the average amount collected in the province where the business or collection point is located, as inferred from the data recorded in the national totaliser for the tax period preceding the reference period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 52 and 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, having regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation enshrined in Article 1(644)(g) of L. 190/2014 (Law No 190/2014), which requires national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, particularly those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly those bookmakers jointly with their national intermediaries, to pay the single tax on betting provided for in Legislative Decree No 504/1998, on a flat-rate taxable amount corresponding to three times the average amount collected in the province where the business or collection point is located, as inferred from the data recorded in the national totaliser for the tax period preceding the reference period?

---