# C_2017330EN.01000502.xml

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-375/17)

(2017/C 330/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Appellants:

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules, such as those laid down by Article 1(653) of the 2015 Stability Law and the relevant implementing legislation, that provide for an exclusive mono-concessionaire model for management of the Lotto, but not for other games, prediction games and betting? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules, such as those laid down by Article 1(653) of the 2015 Stability Law and the relevant implementing legislation, that provide for an exclusive mono-concessionaire model for management of the Lotto, but not for other games, prediction games and betting?

| 2. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding a concession notice that stipulates a much higher basic contract value unjustified in relation to the requirements concerning economic and financial standing and technical and organisational ability, as set out in paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 11. 12.4 and 15.3 of the concession documents for the award of the Lotto concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding a concession notice that stipulates a much higher basic contract value unjustified in relation to the requirements concerning economic and financial standing and technical and organisational ability, as set out in paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 11. 12.4 and 15.3 of the concession documents for the award of the Lotto concession?

1

| 3. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules that impose a de facto choice between being awarded a new concession and continuing to exercise the freedom to provide various betting services on a cross-border basis, a choice of the kind that results from Article 30 of the model contract, the effect being that the decision to participate in the tender for the award of the new concession would involve abandoning the cross-border activity, even though the legality of that activity has on several occasions been recognised by the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules that impose a de facto choice between being awarded a new concession and continuing to exercise the freedom to provide various betting services on a cross-border basis, a choice of the kind that results from Article 30 of the model contract, the effect being that the decision to participate in the tender for the award of the new concession would involve abandoning the cross-border activity, even though the legality of that activity has on several occasions been recognised by the Court of Justice?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

1

---