Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:434
Date: 2024-05-30
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Internal market - Principles;Consumer protection;Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-664/22 – 1 
Case C-664/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
21 October 2022 
Referring court:  
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
10 October 2022 
Applicant:  
Google Ireland Limited 
Defendant:  
Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought by Google Ireland Limited (‘the applicant’) for the annulment of: 
(i) the measure of 25 June 2019 of the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle 
Comunicazioni (Communications Regulatory Authority, Italy) (‘AGCOM’), by 
which the latter automatically entered the applicant in the Register of 
Communications Operators (‘the RCO’) pursuant to Decision No 666/08/CONS; 
(ii) AGCOM Decision No 200/21/CONS amending Decision No 666/08/CONS 
on the rules for maintaining a register of communications operators following the 
entry into force of legge 30 dicembre 2020, n. 178, ‘Bilancio di previsione dello 
Stato per l’anno finanziario 2021 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2021-2023’ 
(Law No 178 of 30 December 2020 on the State budget for the 2021 financial year 
and the multiannual budget for the three-year period 2021-2023); (iii) all related 
acts, including Decision No 398/13/CONS in so far as it amends Decision 
No 666/08/CONS to adapt it to the changes introduced by Article 3(5-ter) of 
decreto-legge 18 maggio 2012, n. 63 (Decree-Law No 63 of 18 May 2012). 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-664/22 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law, and in particular: 
- Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it 
precludes the provisions of a Member State that impose additional administrative 
and financial obligations on communications operators established in another 
European country but operating in Italy; 
- the principle of freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 TFEU, as 
well as similar principles that can be inferred from Directives 2006/123/EC and 
2000/31/EC, for the purpose of ascertaining whether those principles preclude the 
provisions of a Member State that impose, on intermediaries operating in Italy but 
not established there, additional obligations to those laid down in the country of 
origin for the pursuit of the same activity; 
- Directive (EU) 2015/1535 and Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, for the 
purpose of ascertaining whether the Italian State was required to notify the 
European Commission of the extension of the obligation to be entered in the RCO 
to providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search 
engines, and whether, in the event of failure to notify the Commission of said 
extension, a private individual, established in a Member State other than Italy, 
may object to the abovementioned Italian legislation liable to restrict the free 
movement of an information society service being applied to him or her; 
- Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and the principle of proportionality, for the purpose 
of ascertaining whether they preclude the provisions of a Member State or 
measures adopted by an independent national authority that impose an obligation 
on providers of online intermediation services operating in a Member State to be 
entered in the RCO, which gives rise to additional administrative and financial 
obligations. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does EU law preclude the application of national provisions, such as 
Article 1(515), (516) and (517) of legge 30 dicembre 2020, n. 178 (Law No 178 of 
30 December 2020), which impose additional administrative and financial 
obligations on operators established in another European country but operating in 
Italy, such as the obligation to be entered in a special register and to pay a 
financial contribution? Specifically, do such national provisions infringe Article 3 
of the Directive on electronic commerce (Directive 2000/31/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000) under which a provider of 
information society services – in this case Google Ireland Limited – is subject 
exclusively to the legislation (…) of the Member State in which the service 
provider is established?  
GOOGLE IRELAND 
 
3 
2. Does EU law preclude the application of national provisions, such as 
Article 1(515), (516) and (517) of Law No 178 of 30 December 2020, which 
impose additional administrative and financial obligations on operators 
established in another European country? Specifically, does the principle of 
freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 [TFEU], as well as similar 
principles that can be inferred from Directives 2006/123/EC and 2000/31/EC, 
preclude a national measure that places, on intermediaries operating in Italy but 
not established there, additional obligations to those envisaged in the country of 
origin for the pursuit of the same activity?  
3. Does EU law, and in particular Directive (EU) 2015/1535, require the Italian 
State to notify the Commission of the introduction of the obligation to be entered 
in the RCO, imposed on providers of online intermediation services and providers 
of online search engines? Specifically, must the second indent of Article 3(4)(b) 
of Directive 2000/31 be interpreted as meaning that a private individual, 
established in a Member State other than Italy, may object to measures adopted by 
the Italian legislature (under Article 1(515), (516), (517) of Law No 178 of 
30 December 2020) that are liable to restrict the free movement of an information 
society service, when those measures were not notified in accordance with that 
provision?  
4. Does Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, and in particular Article 15 thereof, as well 
as the principle of proportionality, preclude legislation of a Member State or a 
measure adopted by an independent national authority requiring providers of 
online intermediation services operating in a Member State to be entered in the 
RCO, which gives rise to a series of formal and procedural obligations, 
obligations to pay contributions and restrictions on earning profits in excess of a 
certain amount?  
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 56 TFEU; 
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 
2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular 
electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), 
in particular recitals 19 and 22 and Articles 2 and 3; 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, in particular recital 39 and 
Articles 16 and 19; 
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the 
field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, in 
particular Articles 1 and 5; 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-664/22 
 
4  
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online 
intermediation services, in particular recital 51 and Article 15. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice relied on 
Judgments in Cases C-194/94, C-215/01 and C-390/18. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto-legge 23 ottobre 1996, n. 545, ‘Disposizioni urgenti per l’esercizio 
dell’attività radiotelevisiva e delle telecomunicazioni’ (Decree-Law No 545 of 
23 October 1996 containing urgent provisions for broadcasting and 
telecommunications activities), converted into law by legge 23 dicembre 1996, n. 
650 (Law No 650 of 23 December 1996), in particular Article 1, as amended 
(following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150) by Law No 178 of 
30 December 2020 on the State budget for the 2021 financial year and the 
multiannual budget for the three-year period 2021-2023);  
Legge 31 luglio 1997, n. 249, ‘Istituzione dell’Autorità per le garanzie nelle 
comunicazioni e norme sui sistemi delle telecomunicazioni e radiotelevisivo’ 
(Law No 249 of 31 July 1997 establishing the Communications Regulatory 
Authority and telecommunications and broadcasting standards), in particular 
Article 1, as amended by Law No 178/2020; 
For the purposes of this reference for a preliminary ruling, the rules resulting from 
those provisions are as follows: 
- according to the legislation, the adequate and effective enforcement of 
Regulation 2019/1150, which promotes fairness and transparency for business 
users of online intermediation services, including by adopting guidelines, 
encouraging codes of conduct to be drawn up and gathering relevant information, 
must be guaranteed; 
- it is an obligation for providers of online intermediation services and providers 
of online search engines offering services in Italy, even if they are not established 
there, to be entered in the RCO; 
- entry in the RCO gives rise to obligations to provide information and pay 
financial contributions, as well as restrictions for those service providers. The 
obligations to provide information consist of the disclosure to AGCOM of data 
about the corporate structure of the registered undertakings, while the payment 
obligations consist of paying an annual contribution intended to cover AGCOM’s 
operating costs. Conversely, the restrictions apply to the maximum revenue that 
may be earned by undertakings registered in the RCO: under national legislation, 
GOOGLE IRELAND 
 
5 
such undertakings cannot earn revenue in excess of 20% of the total revenue of 
the integrated communications system.  
- AGCOM has the power to determine by its own measures which accounting data 
and other information must be disclosed to it; 
AGCOM Decision No 200/21/CONS of 17 June 2021 amending Decision 
No 666/08/CONS on the rules for maintaining a register of communications 
operators following the entry into force of Law No 178 of 30 December 2020 on 
the State budget for the 2021 financial year and the multiannual budget for the 
three-year period 2021-2023. Decision No 200/21/CONS amended the earlier 
Decision No 666/08/CONS in accordance with the provisions of Law 
No 178/2020. Specifically, it introduced the obligation to be entered in the RCO 
for providers of online intermediation services and providers of online search 
engines that, even if not established or resident in the national territory, provide 
such services to business users established or resident in Italy. Moreover, that 
obligation is accompanied by the following further obligations: 
- the completion of various forms describing both the activity carried out by the 
obliged entity and how that entity is organised (information about the share 
capital, names of the shareholders, composition and term of the administrative 
body). The information communicated must be updated annually and 
administrative penalties apply in the event of non-compliance. 
Decreto-legge 18 maggio 2012, n. 63, ‘Disposizioni urgenti in materia di riordino 
dei contributi alle imprese editrici, nonché di vendita della stampa quotidiana e 
periodica e di pubblicità istituzionale’ (Decree-Law No 63 of 18 May 2012 
containing urgent provisions on the reorganisation of contributions to publishers 
and the sale of newspapers and periodicals and corporate advertising). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant, Google Ireland Limited, is an Irish company that offers online 
advertising services and operates a search engine in the European Economic Area. 
By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the measure of 25 June 2019, 
by which AGCOM automatically entered the applicant in the RCO on the ground 
that the applicant acts as an online advertising agency and, despite having its 
registered office abroad, earns revenue in Italy. The applicant also seeks the 
annulment of AGCOM Decision No 200/21/CONS which, in order to implement 
the provisions introduced by Article 1 of Law No 178/2020 and to transpose 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, extended the obligation to be entered in the RCO to 
providers of online intermediation services and to online search engines. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-664/22 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
2 The referring court holds that the service provided by the applicant is an 
information society service within the meaning of Directive 2015/1535 and that 
the applicant in the present case is established in Ireland. It doubts whether the 
obligation to be entered in the RCO complies with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31 
(‘Directive on electronic commerce’), given that such an obligation may 
constitute, in the light of that directive, an unlawful restriction on the free 
movement of information society services. The obligation pertains to the pursuit 
of the activity of information society services within the meaning of that directive; 
it also applies to service providers established in Member States other than Italy 
and creates an additional administrative burden and significant financial 
obligations for those service providers. Moreover, the services in question do not 
come within the exempt categories provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31. 
3 The referring court also has doubts as to whether the obligation to be entered in 
the RCO complies with the principle of freedom to provide services enshrined in 
Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 (‘Services Directive’). That directive provides 
that Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services in the case of 
a provider established in another Member State, in particular by imposing an 
obligation to obtain an authorisation from the competent authorities. In the present 
case, the obligation to be entered in the RCO imposed on undertakings established 
in another Member State is liable to affect the freedom to provide services, since it 
gives rise to financial and administrative costs which could distort the internal 
market and delay, complicate or make more onerous the provision of services in 
the host Member State. 
4 First, the referring court recalls that Directive 2015/1535 lays down a procedure 
for the provision of information in the field of rules on information society 
services to ensure as much transparency as possible as regards national initiatives 
and to allow the Commission to supervise them, in order to safeguard the principle 
of the free movement of services. Since (i) the services provided by the applicant 
come within the category of information society services and (ii) the rules 
concerning the obligation to be entered in the RCO, applicable to providers of 
online intermediation services and online search engines, specifically introduce a 
requirement for the operation of information society services, those rules should 
have been notified to the Commission.  
5 Second, the referring court points out that the obligation to be entered in the RCO 
is liable to restrict the free movement of information society services provided by 
an entity established in another Member State. In that regard, the second indent of 
Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2000/31 provides that the Commission and the 
Member State in which the undertaking is established must be notified of the 
intention to take such measures. In the light of those considerations, the referring 
court thus considers that the Member State’s failure to notify the Commission of 
the measure may infringe such disclosure requirements. 
GOOGLE IRELAND 
 
7 
6 Lastly, the referring court questions whether the obligation to be entered in the 
RCO, provided for by AGCOM Decision No 668/08/CONS (as amended by 
Decision No 200/21/CONS), complies with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 
2019/1150. In that regard, Article 15 of the regulation confers on Member States 
the task of ensuring the adequate and effective enforcement of Regulation 
2019/1150. The referring court holds that the contested AGCOM measures entail 
obligations liable to restrict the freedom to provide services. Such a restriction 
was justified in national case-law by the need for the competent authority to 
perform its official duties under Article 1 of Law No 650/1996. In the present 
case, the referring court doubts whether that need is sufficient to justify the 
obligation to be entered in the RCO, together with the further associated 
obligations and restrictions, and whether those obligations and restrictions respect 
the principle of proportionality.