# C_2022424EN.01000401.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Admiral Gaming Network Srl and Others v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli and Others

(Joined Cases C-475/20 to C-482/20) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Restrictions - Betting and gambling - Licences for the management of games played on gaming machines - National legislation imposing a levy on licence holders - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2022/C 424/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Admiral Gaming Network Srl (C-475/20), Cirsa Italia SpA (C-476/20), Codere Network SpA (C-477/20), Gamenet SpA (C-478/20), NTS Network SpA (C-479/20), Sisal Entertainment SpA (C-480/20), Snaitech SpA, formerly Cogetech SpA (C-481/20), and Snaitech SpA, formerly Snai SpA (C-482/20)

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (C-475/20, C-477/20), Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-475/20, C-477/20, C-481/20), IGT Lottery SpA, formerly Lottomatica Holding Srl (C-475/20), and Se. Ma. di Francesco Senese (C-481/20)

with the participation of: Lottomatica Videolot Rete SpA (C-475/20), Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons) (C-476/20, C-478/20, C-480/20, C-482/20) and Others

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as it is established that a piece of national legislation imposing a levy the effect of which is to reduce the commissions of licence holders responsible for the management of games played on gaming machines entails a restriction on the freedom guaranteed by that provision of the FEU Treaty, such a restriction cannot be justified by objectives exclusively based on considerations relating to the improvement of public finances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as it is established that a piece of national legislation imposing a levy the effect of which is to reduce the commissions of licence holders responsible for the management of games played on gaming machines entails a restriction on the freedom guaranteed by that provision of the FEU Treaty, such a restriction cannot be justified by objectives exclusively based on considerations relating to the improvement of public finances.

| 2. | In so far as Article 49 TFEU is applicable, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a piece of national legislation which temporarily reduces, during the term of licensing agreements concluded between companies and the administration of the Member State concerned, the license holders’ commissions agreed to in those agreements, unless it appears, in view of the extent of the impact of that reduction on the profitability of the investments made by licence holders and in view of the possible suddenness and unforeseeable nature of that measure, that those licence holders were not given the time necessary to adapt to that new situation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as Article 49 TFEU is applicable, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a piece of national legislation which temporarily reduces, during the term of licensing agreements concluded between companies and the administration of the Member State concerned, the license holders’ commissions agreed to in those agreements, unless it appears, in view of the extent of the impact of that reduction on the profitability of the investments made by licence holders and in view of the possible suddenness and unforeseeable nature of that measure, that those licence holders were not given the time necessary to adapt to that new situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---