# C_2023127EN.01002301.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2023 — B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-50/23, B.E. and Play Game)

(2023/C 127/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl

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

Questions referred

| (1) | Does the aforementioned national legislation infringe the European freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business in so far as: (i) it entails an increase in the fee irrespective of the size of the business; (ii) it imposes the acceptance of the extension and of the aforementioned fee increase, exacerbated by the prohibition on transferring the premises, as an unreasonable condition for participating in subsequent tenders which are also indefinitely postponed? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Does the aforementioned national legislation infringe the European freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business in so far as: (i) it entails an increase in the fee irrespective of the size of the business; (ii) it imposes the acceptance of the extension and of the aforementioned fee increase, exacerbated by the prohibition on transferring the premises, as an unreasonable condition for participating in subsequent tenders which are also indefinitely postponed?

| (2) | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as justified by the alleged existence of an overriding reason in the public interest, namely the need to align the timing of the launch of tender procedures? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as justified by the alleged existence of an overriding reason in the public interest, namely the need to align the timing of the launch of tender procedures?

| (3) | If, nevertheless, an overriding reason in the public interest is deemed to exist, have the following also been infringed: (i) the principle of proportionality, because the restrictive measure is not appropriate, suitable and proportionate, in the strictest sense, to the formally indicated public objective; (ii) the principle of competition for the market, because the choice to extend the concessions and postpone the launch of the calls for tenders prevents operators in the sector from exercising the freedom to conduct a business, at least in terms of the business planning and scheduling that is required? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

If, nevertheless, an overriding reason in the public interest is deemed to exist, have the following also been infringed: (i) the principle of proportionality, because the restrictive measure is not appropriate, suitable and proportionate, in the strictest sense, to the formally indicated public objective; (ii) the principle of competition for the market, because the choice to extend the concessions and postpone the launch of the calls for tenders prevents operators in the sector from exercising the freedom to conduct a business, at least in terms of the business planning and scheduling that is required?

---