Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:244
Date: 2026-03-23
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Anonymised version 
Translation C-589/25 – 1 
Case C-589/25 [Momari] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
5 September 2025 
Referring court:  
Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana 
(Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
5 September 2025 
Appellants:  
Ministero dell’Interno 
Questura Ragusa 
Respondent:  
TV, as legal representative of 23 Play s.r.l.s 
  
I T A L I A N  R E P U B L I C 
Il CONSIGLIO DI GIUSTIZIA AMMINISTRATIVA PER LA REGIONE 
SICILIANA (Council of Administrative Justice for the Region of Sicily, Italy) 
Sezione giurisdizionale (Regional Chamber) 
made the following 
ORDER 
on the appeal […] lodged by 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Ministero dell’Interno, Questura Ragusa, […] (Ministry of the Interior, Ragusa 
Police, Italy). 
v 
TV, acting as the legal representative pro tempore of ‘23 Play s.r.l.s.’ […] 
for the variation 
of the judgment of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia sezione 
staccata di Catania (Sezione Quarta) (Regional Administrative Court for Sicily, 
Detached Section of Catania (Fourth Chamber), Italy) No 1192 of 28 March 2024, 
delivered in the action between the persons. 
[Having regard to] […] 
1. The case at issue. 
1.1. By an action brought before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la 
Sicilia (Regional Administrative Court for Sicily), sitting in Catania […] the 
[appellant] brought an action for annulment: 
(a) [of the] decree of the Questore di Ragusa, (Police Commissioner, Ragusa). 
No. Cat. 11 A DIV.P.A.S.I./2018, […] by which the application submitted on 
22 June 2018, aimed at obtaining the issuance of the authorisation referred to in 
Article 88 of R.D. n. 773 del 1931 (T.U.L.P.S.) (Royal Decree No. 773 of 1931 – 
Single text of the laws on public security) for the purposes of the provision of 
cross-border data transmission services relating to contractual betting proposals on 
behalf of the company Stanley bei Malta Limited, within the premises located in 
Pozzallo (RG), was rejected […] and, at the same time, ordered the cessation of 
the activity covered by the application; 
(b) of the communication [irrelevant in this case] […]; 
(c) […] every other prior, preliminary, subsequent and in any event 
consequential and/or connected act, even if not known. 
By the same plea, the appellant sought compensation for all the damage suffered 
as a result of the contested measures. 
1.2. In support of the lodged appeal, it stated: 
- by application dated 22 June 2018, it requested the Questura di Ragusa 
(Police Headquarters of Ragusa) to issue the authorisation [cited above] […]; 
- by note of 24 July 2018, the Police Headquarters of Ragusa asked the 
appellant for clarification and additional documents, to which the appellant replied 
by the note dated 26 July 2028; 
MOMARI 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
- however, by [the] decree [cited above] […], the Police Commissioner of 
Ragusa, noting that the company Stanleybet was ‘not in possession of the 
authorisation granted by the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 
Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (Ministry of Economy and 
Finance – Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies), an indispensable 
and essential prerequisite for the grant of the prescribed police authorisation’, 
rejected the application, […] ordering it to cease the activity being unlawfully 
conducted. 
1.3. The appellant put forward a single ground of appeal against that decision, in 
the following terms: ‘Infringement and misapplication of Articles 4.3, 49 and 56 
TFEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the judgments in Placanica and 
Others (C-338/04, 359/04 and C-360/04), Costa-Cifone (C-72/12 and C-77/12) 
and Laezza (C-375/14)’. In the appellant’s view, by virtue of numerous judgments 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Italian legislation on betting is 
contrary to Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, with the result that the refusal of the […] 
Administration, in so far as it made the granting of that authorisation certificate 
conditional upon the bookmaker first obtaining a ministerial licence, incorporated 
‘the same defects that invalidate the primary legislation, thereby in turn affected 
by (derivative) EU illegality’. 
Thus, the appellant requested the administrative court of first instance to set aside 
Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. ‘in so far as it makes the issuance of a public security 
licence conditional upon the applicant company first obtaining an ADM licence’ 
and, consequently, to annul the decision to reject the application based exclusively 
on the fact that Stanleybet is not in possession of the necessary authorisation. 
In the alternative, the appellant requested that the proceedings be stayed and the 
case referred to the Court of Justice pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 267 
TFEU, by referring a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: […] 
Lastly, the appellant has brought a claim for compensation for the material 
damage incurred […]. 
1.4. In order to challenge the appeal, the Ministero dell’interno (Ministry of the 
Interior) and the Questura di Ragusa (Police Headquarters of Ragusa) brought 
legal proceedings by a document dated 8 March 2019, claiming that the appeal 
should be dismissed in its entirety. 
1.5. By judgment no. 1192 of 28 March 2024, […] the Regional Administrative 
Court upheld the appeal, awarding the costs of the proceedings. 
In particular, it held: 
- Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. provides that ‘Authorisation to engage in betting 
activities is granted by Ministries or other entities exclusively to concessionaires 
or authorised persons to which the law reserves the right to organise and manage 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
betting, and to persons appointed by the concessionaire or by the holder of an 
authorisation under the same licence or authorisation’; 
- by an interpretative provision, Article 2(1) ter of decreto legge n. 40 del 
2010 (Decree-Law No 40 of 2010) clarified that ‘the authorisation provided for 
herein, where it is issued for businesses in which the operation and collection of 
bets in public competitions offering prizes in cash are carried out, is valid only 
after a specific licence for the operation and collection of that gaming has been 
granted to the owners of those establishments by the Ministry of the Economy and 
Finance – Autonomous administration of State monopolies’, 
- that system of authorisation in Italy is based on a ‘dualist’ system, which 
requires the grant of a special licence to the bookmaker, that is to say, to the 
economic operator responsible for collecting lawful bets and, subsequently, a 
public security licence in favour of businesses, known as data transmission centres 
(DTC), which collect bets in Italy and transmit them electronically to the foreign 
bookmaker; 
- as regards, more specifically, Stanleybet’s position, the Court of Justice of 
the European Union has intervened on several occasions, and has declared the 
incompatibility between European law and, in particular, the freedom of 
establishment and the freedom to provide services recognised by the Treaties, and 
the Italian betting regulations in force, by laying down the following principles of 
law: ‘3. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC [now Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, ed.] must be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the 
betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are 
quoted on the regulated markets. 4. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted 
as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, 
which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main 
proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a 
licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where 
those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that 
Member State, in breach of [EU] law, refused to grant licences or authorisations 
to such persons’ (see CJEC, Grand Chamber, 6 March 2007, Placanica and 
Others, Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04; see also judgment of the 
CJEU, IV Sect., judgment Costa and Cifone, 16 February 2012, Joined Cases 
C-72/10 and C-77/10; 
- in other words, the Court criticised the Italian legislation in the area of the 
collection of bets, in so far as it results in the exclusion from licensing procedures 
of certain companies established in European States, such as Stanleybet, and, at 
the same time, imposes criminal penalties on the operators of DTCs which, having 
been unable to obtain police authorisation on that unlawful ground, carry on the 
activity of collecting bets electronically with those companies; 
MOMARI 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
- as a result of those judgments, national case-law has held that the Court of 
Justice has ‘thus created, through its case-law, a kind of amnesty’, with the result 
that Stanleybet’s position stands as an ‘exception to the rule’ ([case-law 
references] […]). Consequently, a sort of judicial ‘practice’ has been created in 
Italian case-law, whereby ‘in addition to national operators holding a licence and 
authorisation … on the basis of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by 
Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – TFEU, 
persons who, authorised to collect bets on the basis of the legislation of another 
Member State, conduct those activities in Italy without a licence or authorisation 
of any kind, may also operate’ (see Cons. Stato (Italian Council of State), Section 
IV, 9 March 2022, No 1685); 
- it follows that restrictions, such as those at issue in the present case, cannot 
be applied to the owners of data transmission centres contractually linked to the 
operator Stanleybet, in so far as they are affiliated to that operator, which, in turn, 
is unlawfully restricted from access to the Italian concession system; 
- given that the only assumption made in the contested decision to reject the 
application was precisely that Stanleybet was not in possession of a licence, in the 
light of the aforementioned judicial practice, and of the principles stated by the 
Consiglio di Stato in Adunanza Plenaria (plenary session of the Italian Council of 
State), according to which the court must interpret a ‘provision of national law in 
terms which are not contrary to European Union law, as is apparent from a 
judgment of the Court of Justice’, the Italian legislation which stipulates that a 
bookmaker must hold a licence for the purposes of the legitimate pursuit of the 
activity of collecting bets, must be set aside, with the result that the contested 
decision to reject the application is invalid, in so far as it was made on the basis of 
a provision liable to be set aside; 
- in view of the conformity of the relevant line of national and EC case-law, 
there is no reason to refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, as in the present case there is no doubt regarding interpretation that should 
be referred to it for a preliminary ruling. 
1.6. That judgment was appealed against by the Ministero dell’interno (Ministry 
of the Interior) and the Questura di Ragusa (Police Headquarters of Ragusa) […]. 
The appellants claimed, in particular, that: 
- the argument put forward in the appealed judgment, which identifies an 
alleged conflict between Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, 
cannot be accepted, as it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions 
of the TFEU, as well as on an incorrect reading of the rulings of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union and of the Consiglio di Stato (Italian Council of 
State) […]; 
- contrary to what was held in the judgment at first instance, the Court of 
Justice of the European Union has at no time found that there is a contradiction 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
between the Italian authorisation regime relating to the activity of collecting bets, 
based on the so-called dualist system, and the European principles in the area of 
freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in 
Articles 49 and 56 TFEU; 
- the provisions in force in the Italian legal system make the collection of bets 
subject to a dual system (the dualist system) of licensing and authorisation. In 
particular, Article 1 of Legislative Decree No 496/1948 provides that ‘the 
organisation and exercise of games of skill and gambling pools, for which a 
reward of any kind is paid and the participation in which requires the payment of 
a cash stake, shall be reserved to the State’, on the basis, first, of d.P.R. n. 
33/2002 (Presidential Decree No 33/2002), followed by Article 4 of d.lgs. n. 
138/2002 (Legislative Decree No 138/2002) and, finally, of Article 8 of d.l. n. 
282/2002 (Decree-Law No 282/2002), the State exercised the power, conferred by 
the law in question, to entrust the management of the sector to a specific public 
body, namely the Agenzia delle Dogane e Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies 
Agency); on the basis of those rules, the activity in question was reserved to 
persons who obtain a specific licence, awarded within the limit of a maximum 
quota by means of public invitations to tender; 
- in this framework, art. 88 T.U.L.P.S. is incorporated, according to which 
[referred to above] […]; by an interpretative provision – art. 2(2-ter), of Decree-
Law No 40/2010 [referred to above] […] 
- it follows from the aforementioned provisions that, as the respondent itself 
acknowledges, the issue of an authorisation certificate under Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. 
cannot disregard the fact that the operator responsible for collecting bets (referred 
to as a bookmaker) has first obtained a licence; 
- the dualist system thus defined is in no way contrary to European legislation, 
as it is based on grounds of public policy and public security.  
It may be considered that the requirement to prevent organised crime from 
infiltrating the betting market and to control whether it is carried out lawfully 
constitutes, according to the principles of EU law, an overriding requirement in 
the public interest, which justifies restrictive rules in that area; 
- this has been recognised by national and supranational case-law. In 
particular, by its judgment of 22 January 2015 in Case C-463/13, the Court of 
Justice of the European Union expressly confirmed the compatibility of the Italian 
licensing system with European principles, on account of the ‘specific nature of 
legislation on betting and gambling, which is one of the areas in which there are 
significant moral, religious and cultural differences between the Member States’, 
with the result that, in ‘the absence of harmonisation on the issue at EU level, it is 
for each Member State to determine in those areas, in accordance with its own 
scale of values, what is required in order to ensure that the interests in question 
are protected’; 
MOMARI 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
- in its judgment of 12 September 2012, Biasci and Bainone (Cases C-660/11 
and C-8/12), the Court of Justice expressly stated that there is no principle of 
mutual recognition of authorisations in the sphere of betting and gaming in the 
European Union. Consequently, there is no basis in EU law for the argument, also 
put forward by the opposing person at first instance, that any operator authorised 
to collect bets in any EU member state has the right to operate in Italy, in the 
exercise of the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services, 
through data transmission centres (DTCs) and top-up points. 
Along the same lines, the subsequent judgments of the CJEU of 19 December 
2018 in Case C-375/17 and 26 February 2020 in Case C-788/18, in which it was 
reaffirmed that ‘the Court has validated the use of the system of concessions in the 
sector of games of chance, considering that it may constitute an efficient 
mechanism enabling operators active in the sector of games of chance to be 
controlled with a view to preventing the exploitation of those activities for 
criminal or fraudulent purposes’, 
- the Consiglio di Stato (Italian Council) of State also emphasised the full 
compatibility with European law of the dual track system, which means that 
operators in the betting and gaming sector must obtain both the administrative 
licence issued by the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and 
Monopolies Agency) and the police authorisation issued by the territorially 
competent Police Commissioner on the assumption that they are holders of a 
licence. The objective pursued by the aforementioned system, which aims, not to 
limit the demand and supply of gaming, but to channel it into circuits that can be 
controlled in order to prevent possible criminal degeneration ([Case-law 
references] […]), is in fact capable of justifying restrictions to the fundamental 
freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, respecting the principle of 
proportionality; 
- the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) (judgment No 27 of 
27 February 2019), recalling numerous precedents, reiterated that the objective of 
preventing criminal offences and maintaining public order is in keeping with the 
national legislation on lawful gaming, thereby justifying the application of the 
authorisation scheme provided for by articles 86 e 88 T.U.L.P.S.; 
- it follows from the case-law principles set out above that the outcome of the 
judgment under appeal – which would result in Stanleybet being placed in a 
situation of undue advantage over other operators – is in no way laid down by 
European law, given that the case-law relied on does not allow a person without a 
licence, as a result of being unlawfully excluded from the tendering procedure for 
the award of the contract, and the DTCs linked to it, to be treated in the same way 
as an economic operator holding a licence or to the DTCs which have regularised 
their situation on the basis of the aforementioned regularisation rules; 
- it should also be borne in mind that the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, in its judgment of 16 March 2023 in Case C-517/2020, also stated that ‘the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
objectives of consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement 
to squander money on gambling, as well as the general need to preserve public 
order, have in fact been recognised in the case-law of the Court as one of the 
overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying restrictions on the 
fundamental freedoms enshrined in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU’ 
- it is clear from the foregoing that there is no contradiction between 
Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. and the provisions of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, as wrongly 
held by the Regional Court on the basis of an incorrect reading of the judgments 
of the Court of Justice; 
- the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has never 
expressly recognised the legitimacy of the modus operandi adopted by Stanleybet, 
stating that the position of the company, and of its DTCs, constitutes an ‘exception 
to the rule’, so as to make them essentially comparable to operators legally 
holding the relevant licences required for the collection of bets. On this point, it is 
sufficient to recall what was clarified by the Court of Justice of the European 
Union in its judgment of 19 December 2018 in Case C-375/17, in which – without 
prejudice to the full legitimacy of the regulatory framework in force in Italy for 
the gaming and betting sector – it was expressly stated that ‘although the Court 
found that certain provisions of the calls for tenders for the award of concession 
contracts for services related to games of chance were incompatible with EU law, 
it did not rule on the legality of the management of activities linked to games of 
chance under the rules on the freedom to provide services by means of DTCs as 
such’ (paragraph 67; see below]; 
- to summarise, the supranational case-law cited in the judgment at first 
instance merely recognised the exclusion from criminal liability, based on 
criminal penalties, of the activity of collecting bets carried out by foreign 
operators not in possession of the relevant authorisation, only where those 
deficiencies are the result of the unlawful exclusion of foreign operators from 
participating in tendering procedures announced by the Italian State (that is to say, 
more specifically, the tendering procedures announced by the Italian State in 1999 
and 2006); that case-law arose when, in the context of tendering procedures 
introduced in the past by the Italian State for the award of licences for the 
collection of bets, in which it became apparent that the economic operator 
Stanleybet had been excluded by measures contrary to European law, that operator 
continued to operate in Italy through its own DTCs, which were not in possession 
of the police authorisation referred to in Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. As a result, the 
operators of those DTCs were charged with the offence of the unlawful collection 
of bets and in the proceedings in question, the question of the legality of the 
contested provision was submitted, by reference for a preliminary ruling, to the 
Court of Justice, which, in the judgments of 6 March 2007 in Case C-338/04 
Placanica and of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa 
and Cifone, confirmed in principle that the restrictions imposed by the Member 
States on the exercise of the activity in question were compatible with European 
law, but took the view, however, that, in the specific case, ‘national 
MOMARI 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
legislation, ….. which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the 
defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of 
collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the 
national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or 
authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused 
to grant licences or authorisations to such persons’ was incompatible with the 
Treaty. 
- with the corollary that the scope of the aforementioned judgments of the 
Court has therefore been limited to the area of the criminal penalties laid down for 
the abusive exercise of the activity of collecting bets, seeing that it merely 
considered that a European operator who had not obtained the necessary licences 
or authorisations, due to its unlawful exclusion from tendering procedures, was 
not liable to criminal penalties. It must therefore be categorically denied that the 
fact that Stanleybet – as recognised by the Court of Justice of the European 
Union – had been unlawfully excluded from the procedures for the award of the 
1999 and 2006 gaming licences in such a manner that the company gained a 
special position with respect to all other operators, allowing it to operate 
indefinitely without a licence; 
- it is therefore clear from the considerations emerging that the Italian dualist 
system, based on the need for authorisation and a licence, is fully compatible with 
European legislation, and that Stanleybet cannot be regarded as having been 
placed in a special position, but should be equated with any operator ‘aspiring’ to 
joining the betting trade in Italy; 
- hence the necessary conclusion that the court of first instance could not have 
set aside the Italian rules which provide that a bookmaker, to whom the data 
transmission centre is affiliated, must obtain a licence for the purposes of lawfully 
exercising the activity of collecting bets, but should, on the contrary, have held 
that Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. was fully applicable to the present case, thereby 
recognising the legality of the challenged measure, by which the respondent was 
rightly refused a police authorisation, seeing that a national licence – an essential 
condition for the issue of the police authorisation under Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. – 
had not been obtained by Stanleybet, the company on behalf of which the DTC 
managed by the respondent intended to carry out the activity which was the 
subject of the application for authorisation. 
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the appellants requested that the 
judgment at first instance be varied in its entirety and, by making an application 
for interim measures, that its effects be suspended. 
1.7. In order to challenge the appeal lodged and the application for interim 
measures submitted at the same time by the appellants, the respondent appeared 
before the court with defence statements lodged on 7 October 2024. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
1.8. By order No. 343 of 14 October 2024, the Chamber – taking the view that 
both the requirements of prima facie case and danger in delay (‘periculum in 
mora’) had been met – upheld the appellants’ application for interim measures and 
suspended the enforceability of the judgment at first instance [other details 
irrelevant with regard to the conduct of the proceedings] […] 
1.9. […] 
2. The relevant national legal framework. 
[Information already provided above] […] 
The Questore (Police Commissioner) argues that the dualist system, based on the 
licence and public security authorisation (i.e.: licence), ‘is justified by the need to 
protect the management of the betting market in accordance with criteria of 
legality, to verify the guarantees which companies operating in foreign territory 
may offer from both a structural and legal point of view, the need for the defence 
against criminal infiltration already referred to and the fight against crime, the 
limitation of possible abuses, protecting not only the running of professional 
competitive activities, but also transparency and legality in the exercise of 
totalisers, the need to protect vulnerable consumers against the risk of addiction, 
to facilitate preventive and follow-up checks by the competent authorities, and to 
prevent betting which is not permitted by national legislation from being 
introduced to the market’. 
[A]rt. 88 of T.U.L.P.S. […] 
[A]rt. 2(2-ter) of decreto legge 25 marzo 2010, n.° 40 (Decree-Law No. 40 of 
25 March 2010) […]. 
Under Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. and the authentic interpretation provided by 
Article 2(2) ter of decreto legge 25 marzo 2010, n.° 40 (Decree-Law No 40 of 
2010, a public security authorisation for betting operations may not be granted to a 
person who is not in possession of the mandatory licence issued by the Agenzia 
delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency) or to a person 
who is not appointed by a concessionaire. Where an authorisation is granted to a 
business in which the operation and collection of bets in public competitions 
offering prizes in cash are carried out, it is not valid until the operator has obtained 
the mandatory licence. 
As regards the monopoly in favour of the State and, on its behalf, the Agenzia 
delle Dogana e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency), the power to 
grant licences for the collection of bets, it should be noted that: 
- Article 1 of d.lgs. 14 agosto 1948, n.° 496 (Legislative Decree No. 496 of 
14th August 1948) [referred to above] […]; 
MOMARI 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
- Article 1 of d.P.R. 24 gennaio 2002, n.° 33 (Presidential Decree No 33 of the 
President of the Republic of 24 January 2002), according to which ‘The functions 
of the State in the area of games of skill, gambling pools and betting, including 
those relating to the management of the related revenue, allocated to the Agenzia 
delle Entrate (Revenue Agency), shall be carried out by the Ministry of the 
Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze – Amministrazione autonoma dei 
monopoli di Stato (Economy and Economy and Finance – Autonomous 
administration of State monopolies)’; 
- Article 4 of d.l. 8 luglio 2002, n.° 138 (Legislative Decree No 138 of 8 July 
2002), converted, after amendment, by legge 8 agosto 2002, n. 178 (Law No 178 
of 8 August 2002): ‘In order to ensure the unitary management provided for in 
Article 12 of legge 18 ottobre 2001, n. 383 (Law No 383 of 18 October 2001), and 
to avoid overlapping competences, to rationalise the existing computer systems 
and optimise government revenue, the autonomous administration of State 
monopolies shall carry out all the functions relating to the organisation and 
operation of gaming, betting and gambling pools. For gaming, betting and 
gambling pools connected with sporting events, subject to the monopoly of the 
Comitato olimpico nazionale italiano (Italian National Olympic Committee) 
(CONI) provided for in Article 6 of Legislative Decree No 496 of 14 April 1948, 
the aforementioned functions shall be assigned to the autonomous administration 
of State monopolies under licence …’; 
- Article 8 of decreto legge 24 dicembre 2012, n.° 282, convertito, con 
modificazioni, dalla legge 21 febbraio 2003, n.° 27 (Decree-Law No 282 of 
24 December 2012, converted, with amendments, by Law No 27 of 21 February 
2003) [Law establishing the competence of the State in matters of tax collection in 
the sector concerned] […] 
- Article 23-quater of decreto legge 6 luglio 2012, n. 95, convertito, con 
modificazioni, dalla legge 7 agosto 2012, n.° 135 (Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 
2012, converted, with amendments, by Law No 135 of 7 August 2012), which 
provided for the incorporation of the Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di 
Stato (Autonomous administration of State monopolies) into the Agenzia delle 
Dogane (Customs Agency) with effect from 1 December 2012, establishing that 
the functions of the merged entities continue to be exercised […] by the Agenzia 
delle Dogane (Customs Agency), which takes the name ‘Agenzia delle Dogane e 
dei Monopoli’ (Customs and Monopolies Agency). 
3. The relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
The Court of Justice of the European Union, called upon to rule on the 
compatibility of the national licensing system for betting and gaming, has set out, 
on several occasions, principles relevant to the resolution of the present dispute. 
The judgment of 19 December 2018 in Case C-375/17 (Stanleybet International 
Betting Ltd and Others) stated: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
‘As the Court has repeatedly held, legislation of a Member State, such as that at 
issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of an economic activity 
subject to a licensing requirement and which specifies situations in which the 
licence is to be withdrawn, constitutes an obstacle to the freedoms guaranteed in 
Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (judgments of 16 February 2012, Costa and Cifone, 
C-72/10 and C-77/10, EU:C:2012:80, paragraph 70, and of 22 January 2015, 
Stanley International Betting and Stanleybet Malta, C-463/13, EU:C:2015:25, 
paragraph 46). 39 That is the case where a sole concessionaire or multiple 
concessionaire model is used. Therefore, as the Advocate General pointed out in 
point 43 of her Opinion, the decisions to make the activity in question subject to 
obtaining a concession and to following a public procurement procedure in 
accordance with the sole concessionaire model must be assessed having regard to 
those articles. 40 For the purpose of that assessment, it should be recalled that, in 
the absence of harmonisation in the field of games of chance at EU level, the 
Member States remain free to set the objectives of their policies in this respect, 
while enjoying a wide discretion as regards choosing the level of consumer 
protection and the preservation of order in society which they deem the most 
appropriate, the restrictive measures that the Member States impose must satisfy 
the conditions laid down in the case-law of the Court as regards inter alia their 
justification by overriding reasons in the general interest and their 
proportionality (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 September 2016, Politanò, 
C-225/15, EU:C:2016:645, paragraphs 39 and 40 and the case-law cited). 41 
Consequently it is necessary to determine whether such a restriction may be 
allowed as a derogation, on grounds of public policy, public security or public 
health, as expressly provided for under Articles 51 and 52 TFEU, which are also 
applicable in the area of freedom to provide services by virtue of Article 62 
TFEU, or justified, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, by overriding 
reasons in the public interest (judgment of 22 January 2015, Stanley International 
Betting and Stanleybet Malta, C-463/13, EU:C:2015:25, paragraph 47 and the 
case-law cited). 42 In the present case, as regards the objectives pursued by the 
rules at issue in the main proceedings, the Italian Government maintains that the 
choice of a sole concessionaire model was, in particular, a response to the need to 
channel the game into a controlled system and to an approach of responsible 
management by restricting competition within that particular market. The Italian 
Government adds that reasons of a technical nature also made such a choice 
necessary, since the alternative model, namely the multi-concessionaire model, 
would have required a dual level of control by means of an entity having to 
coordinate and unify the activities of different concessionaires, and that that 
structure would have led to increased costs. 43 In this respect, as the Court has 
previously pointed out in its case-law on games of chance, consumer protection 
and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander money on gambling 
can be categorised as overriding reasons of public interest justifying restrictions 
on fundamental freedoms deriving from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (see, to that 
effect, judgment of 22 January 2015, Stanley International Betting and Stanleybet 
Malta, C-463/13, EU:C:2015:25, point 48 and the case-law cited)’. 
MOMARI 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
By that decision, the European Court stated: ‘67. Although the Court found that 
certain provisions of the calls for tenders for the award of concession contracts 
for services related to games of chance were incompatible with EU law, it did not 
rule on the legality of the management of activities linked to games of chance 
under the rules on the freedom to provide services by means of DTCs as such’. 
By judgment of 6 March 2007, in the Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/07 and 
C-360/04 (Placanica and Others), the Court of Justice, after pointing out that, 
under Article 4(4) bis of legge 13 dicembre 1989, n.° 401 (Law No 401 of 
13 December 1989), ‘any person who, without the concession, authorisation or 
licence required by Article 88 of the Single text of the laws on public security, 
approved by Royal decree No 773 of 18 June 1931, as amended, carries out 
activities in Italy for the purposes of accepting or collecting, or, in any case, of 
assisting the acceptance or in any way whatsoever the collection, including by 
telephone or by data transfer, of bets of any kind accepted by any person in Italy 
or abroad’ is subject to a penalty – it established: ‘68 Although in principle 
criminal legislation is a matter for which the Member States are responsible, the 
Court has consistently held that Community law sets certain limits to their power, 
and such legislation may not restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by 
Community law (see judgment of 19 January 1999, Case C-348/96 Caifa, ECR 
p. I‑11, paragraph 17). 69 The case-law has also made it quite clear that a 
Member State may not apply a criminal penalty for failure to complete an 
administrative formality where such completion has been refused or rendered 
impossible by the Member State concerned, in infringement of Community law 
(see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 1983, Case 5/83, Rienks [1983] 
ECR p. 4233, paragraphs 10 and 11). 70 It appears that persons such as the 
defendants in the main proceedings, in their capacity as DTC operators linked to 
a company organising bets which is quoted on the regulated markets and which is 
established in another Member State, had no way of being able to obtain the 
licences or police authorisation required under Italian legislation because, 
contrary to Community law, Italy makes the grant of police authorisations subject 
to possession of a licence and, at the time of the last tender procedure in the case 
which is the subject of the main proceedings, had refused to award licences to 
companies quoted on the regulated markets. In consequence, Italy cannot apply 
criminal penalties to persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for 
pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police 
authorisation. 71 Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must therefore be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, 
which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main 
proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a 
licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation where 
those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that 
Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or 
authorisations to such persons’. 
The judgment of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 (Costa 
and Cifone) ran along the same lines: ‘83 It should be noted in that context that it 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
14  
Anonymised version 
is clear from Placanica and Others (paragraph 70 of the judgment) that the Italian 
Republic cannot impose criminal penalties for pursuit of the organised activity of 
collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons linked to an 
operator which has been excluded from the relevant tendering procedure in 
breach of EU law. That judgment was delivered on 6 March 2007, that is to say, 
four months after the deadline of 20 October 2006 set for the submission of 
applications in the tendering procedure provided for under the Bersani Decree. 
84 Consequently, since criminal proceedings against an operator – such as 
Stanley, or its representatives or directors – which, in the light inter alia of 
Placanica and Others, were subsequently revealed to be unfounded, were pending 
at the time of the tendering procedure provided for under the Bersani Decree, 
making it impossible in practice for such an operator to participate in that 
tendering procedure without immediately having its licence withdrawn as a result 
of those proceedings, it must be concluded that the new tendering procedure has 
not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering 
procedure which was at issue in Placanica and Others. 85 Accordingly, and for the 
same reasons as those given in Placanica and Others, penalties for engaging in 
the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation 
cannot – even following the new tendering procedure provided for under the 
Bersani Decree – be imposed on persons, such as Mr Costa and Mr Cifone, who 
are linked to an operator such as Stanley, which was excluded from the earlier 
tendering procedures in breach of EU law.’ 
The Court thus reached the following conclusion: ‘91 In the light of all those 
considerations, the answer to the second part of the question is that Articles 43 
EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for 
engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police 
authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in 
breach of EU law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new 
tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of EU law, in so far as that 
tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact 
remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure’. As 
regards the applicability to the activity of collecting bets of the principles of 
freedom to provide services and of the licensing system imposed by the Italian 
legislation, the Court of Justice (judgment of 26 February 2020 in Case 
C-788/18 Stanleyparma and Stanleybet Malta Ltd) ruled: ‘In the first place it 
should be recalled that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, games of 
chance are subject to the rules on the provision of services and, consequently, fall 
within the scope of Article 56 TFEU, provided that at least one of the providers is 
established in a Member State other than that in which the service is offered (see, 
to that effect, the judgments of 13 November 2003, Lindman, C-42/02, 
EU:C:2003:613, paragraph 19, and of 22 October 2014, Blanco and Fabretti, 
C-344/13 and C-367/13, EU:C:2014:2311, paragraph 27). It is therefore 
necessary to examine the case from the viewpoint of the freedom to provide 
services. 17 It must be borne in mind that the freedom to provide services under 
Article 56 TFEU requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on 
grounds of nationality against providers of services established in other Member 
MOMARI 
 
15 
Anonymised version 
States, but also the abolition of any restriction – even if it applies without 
distinction to national providers of services and to those from other Member 
States – which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the activities 
of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully 
provides similar services (see judgment of 22 October 2014, Blanco and Fabretti, 
C-344/13 and C-367/13, EU:C:2014:2311, paragraph 26). 18 Furthermore, it 
should be noted that the Court has validated the use of the system of concessions 
in the sector of games of chance, considering that it may constitute an efficient 
mechanism enabling operators active in the sector of games of chance to be 
controlled with a view to preventing the exploitation of those activities for 
criminal or fraudulent purposes (judgment of 19 December 2018, Stanley 
International Betting and Stanleybet Malta, C-375/17, EU:C:2018: 1026, 
paragraph 66)’. 
4. The case-law of the Consiglio di Stato (Italian Council of State) on the national 
dual track system. The aforementioned principles expressed by the Court of 
Justice have been transposed by the administrative case-law of last instance 
[Considerations already set out above are repeated here] […] This Council of 
State has also clarified, in an advisory capacity, that ‘the provision under 
examination – paragraphs 643-644 of Article 1 of legge n.° 190 del 2014 (Law no. 
190 of 2014) – arose from the need to remedy a widespread dispute that had 
previously arisen regarding the ability of leading bookmakers and casino 
operators established in other EU countries to operate in Italy, acting in the 
Italian market through the intermediation of numerous agencies commonly 
referred to as ‘data transmission centres’ (‘DTCs’), which offer their services on 
premises open to the public where they make available to gamblers a telematic 
path allowing access to the server of the foreign bookmaker, which is not 
therefore connected to the national totaliser of the Agenzia delle dogane e dei 
monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency) (Opinion no. 1279 of 10 July 2020) 
and recalled, more specifically, that the European Court of Justice has in its case-
law legitimised the system of the so-called dualist authorisation, stating that 
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding national 
legislation which imposes on companies interested in carrying on activities 
connected with betting and gambling the obligation to obtain a police 
authorisation, in addition to a licence issued by the State, in order to conduct such 
activities, noting in essence that the objective of combating crime connected with 
games of chance is capable of justifying those restrictive measures, which satisfy 
the principle of proportionality. 7.5. In addition, in its opinion on an 
extraordinary petition to the Head of State, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of 
State) reiterated the ‘principles already set out, according to which the national 
legal system in the betting sector introduces restrictions justified by requirements 
of public policy and public security, with the aim of channelling the phenomenon 
of gambling pools into controllable systems in order to prevent criminal 
infiltration’ (Opinion No 1010 of 4 June 2021) and has already expressly held 
that ‘moreover, in the opinion of this Chamber, a general rule cannot be inferred 
from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that an economic 
operator, even if unlawfully excluded from the system, must be regarded for all 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
16  
Anonymised version 
intents and purposes (and may therefore act) as a concessionaire authorised to 
carry out the activity in a position wholly equivalent to that of the person holding 
a licence, and that, similarly, “the case-law relied on does not allow a person 
without a licence, as a result of being unlawfully excluded from the tendering 
procedure for the award of the contract, and the DTCs linked to it, to be treated in 
the same way as an economic operator holding a licence or to the DTCs which 
have regularised their situation on the basis of the aforementioned regularisation 
rules” (Opinion No 686 of 16 April 2021). 7.6. Nor should it be forgotten that the 
Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 16 March 2023 in Case 
C-[517]/2020, also once again stated that [referred to above] […] 8. In the light 
of the foregoing, it is clear that the appellants in this action have not suffered any 
damage as a result of acts contested at first instance, as they did not participate in 
the regularisation procedure by choice and could not use the action for annulment 
in order to obtain a declaration that they were entitled to a privileged regime by 
virtue of their alleged status as a person “covered by the case-law” at least at an 
administrative level, beyond the complex issues discussed in tax and criminal 
proceedings regarding their specific situation’. 
5. The relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court. 
[Aspects irrelevant in this case] […]. 
6. The conditions for a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling under Article 267 TFEU. 
[Well-established principles concerning the conditions for a reference to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union] 6.1. […] 
6.2. […] 
6.3. […] 
6.4. […] 
6.5. […] 
6.6. That said, in the present case, it must be held that the conditions which 
require the Council of Administrative Justice to make a reference for a 
preliminary ruling on a specific question of interpretation in the following terms 
are satisfied. 
In the first place, there has been no ruling by the Court on the question of 
interpretation to be referred and, consequently, it is not identical to other decisions 
of the Court, nor is there a settled case-law of the Court, also in view of the 
specific nature of the case at issue. 
In the second place, the question referred for a preliminary ruling raises problems 
of interpretation in respect of which it does not seem possible to consider that ‘the 
MOMARI 
 
17 
Anonymised version 
correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any 
reasonable doubt’, in the light of the clarifications provided by the Court in its 
judgment of 6 October 2021, [C-561/19]. 
7. The question to be referred to the Court of Justice. 
In order to rule on the appeal brought by the Ministero dell’interno (Ministry of 
the Interior) and the Questura (Police Headquarters) of Ragusa against the 
judgment at first instance, it is necessary, according to the referring court, to 
clarify whether the provision in Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. – which requires, for 
reasons relating to the prevention of offences and the protection of public policy, 
the issue of a police authorisation to any person wishing to carry on the activity of 
collecting bets in national territory, by making the issue or, in any event, the 
effectiveness of the licence, subject to the existence of a valid licence issued by 
the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency) – is 
or is not contrary to the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to 
provide the services referred to in articles 49 and 56 T.F.U.E. and with the 
principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. In order to understand that, 
it is necessary to establish what is the meaning and exact scope of the 
aforementioned provisions of the Treaty. 
It is recalled that the Court of Justice, ruling on the possible grounds for justifying 
a restriction on the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (judgment 
of 22 January 2015, in case C-463/13, Stanley International Betting and 
Stanleybet Malta), laid down the following principles: ‘45 It is settled case-law 
that all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of 
the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be regarded as 
restrictions on the freedom of establishment and/or the freedom to provide 
services (see, inter alia, judgment in Duomo Gpa and Others, C-357/10 to 
C-359/10, EU:C:2012:283, paragraphs 35 and 36 and the case-law cited). 46 
Consequently, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings, which makes the exercise of an economic activity subject to a 
licensing requirement and which specifies situations in which the licence is to be 
withdrawn, constitutes an obstacle to the freedoms thus guaranteed by Articles 49 
TFEU and 56 TFEU (see judgment in Costa and Cifone, EU:C:2012:80, 
paragraph 70). 47 It is necessary, however, to determine whether such a 
restriction may be allowed as a derogation, on grounds of public policy, public 
security or public health, as expressly provided for under Articles 51 TFEU and 
Article 52 TFEU, which are also applicable in the area of freedom to provide 
services by virtue of Article 62 TFEU, or justified, in accordance with the case-
law of the Court, by overriding reasons in the public interest (judgment in Digibet 
and Albers, C-156/13, EU:C:2014:1756, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). 
48 Thus, it is settled case-law that restrictions on betting and gambling may be 
justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, such as consumer protection 
and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander money on gambling 
(judgment in Digibet and Albers, EU:C:2014:1756, paragraph 23 and the case-
law cited). 49 Moreover, as regards the Italian legislation relating to betting and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
18  
Anonymised version 
gambling, the Court has held previously that the objective of combating 
criminality linked to betting and gambling is capable of justifying restrictions on 
fundamental freedoms under those rules (see judgment in Biasci and Others, 
C-660/11 and C-8/12, EU:C:2013:550, paragraph 23). 50 In the present case, as 
regards the classification as an “overriding reason in the public interest” of the 
reason given by the national authorities in order to justify the shorter period of 
validity of the new licences, namely the reorganisation of the licensing system 
through the alignment of licence expiry dates, it is true that, according to settled 
case-law, considerations of an administrative nature cannot justify derogation by 
a Member State from the rules of EU law. That principle applies with even greater 
force where the derogation in question amounts to preventing or restricting the 
exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms of EU law (see judgment in Arblade 
and Others, C-369/96 and C-376/96, EU:C:1999:575, paragraph 37 and the case-
law cited) 51 However, it is appropriate to bear in mind the specific nature of 
legislation on betting and gambling, which is one of the areas in which there are 
significant moral, religious and cultural differences between the Member States. 
In the absence of harmonisation on the issue at EU level, it is for each Member 
State to determine in those areas, in accordance with its own scale of values, what 
is required in order to ensure that the interests in question are protected, since the 
identification of the objectives which are in fact pursued by the national 
legislation falls, in the context of a case referred to the Court under Article 267 
TFEU, within the jurisdiction of the national court (judgment in Digibet and 
Albers, EU:C:2014:1756, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). 52 Accordingly, 
in that specific field, national authorities enjoy a wide measure of discretion when 
determining what is required in order to ensure consumer protection and the 
preservation of order in society and – provided that the conditions laid down in 
the Court’s case-law are in fact met – it is for each Member State to assess 
whether, in the context of the legitimate aims which it pursues, it is necessary to 
prohibit, wholly or in part, betting and gambling or only to restrict them and, to 
that end, to lay down more or less strict supervisory rules (see judgment in 
Digibet and Albers, EU:C:2014:1756, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited)’. 
It follows that, in the area of the collection of bets, which is characterised, 
particularly in certain areas of national territory, such as those in southern Italy 
and in particular Sicily, by real risks of infiltration by organised crime – and in 
particular, in Sicily, by the ‘Mafia’ – the need is particularly great for preventive 
screening by the public security authority of the subjective requirements for an 
operator who intends to carry out that activity, through a data transmission centre 
(DTC) in Italy, (even if) under an affiliation arrangement with a bookmaker 
established in another European State. 
Where, as in the present case, there are requirements relating to the protection of 
public policy and public security and the prevention of criminal offences, 
including organised crime, and the protection of the health of natural persons 
against the risks of developing and disseminating compulsive gambling, within 
the meaning of the Articles 51 to 52 and 62 TFEU, it seems reasonable that 
European law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 22 January 
MOMARI 
 
19 
Anonymised version 
2015 in Case C-463/13, would permit (limited) derogations from the freedom of 
establishment and the freedom to provide services. 
As a corollary, both the obligation to apply for authorisation from the public 
security authority under Article 88 T.U.L.P.S. in order to conduct the activity of 
collecting bets on national territory and the condition to be met for that 
authorisation to be given, namely the existence of a licence issued by the Agenzia 
delle Dogane e Monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency), do not appear to 
constitute derogations incompatible with the provisions of the TFEU. 
Namely, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, where the national 
legislation does not contain any unlawful restrictions which led to the failure to 
grant the necessary licence to Stanleybet Malta Ltd. In the opinion of the Court, 
the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments of the Court of Justice 
of 6 March 2007 and 16 February 2012 (Placanica and Costa and Cifone), set out 
in relation to the unlawful exclusion of Stanleybet from tendering procedures 
announced – in 1999 and 2006 – for the award of licences (and, moreover, only in 
relation to the impossibility of penalising in criminal proceedings an operator who 
had carried on the activity of collecting bets without the police authorisation 
provided for in Article 88 T.U.L.P.S.), are not applicable to the present case. 
7.1. Therefore, given the obvious relevance of the question in the light of the 
pending dispute, as it appears from the appellant’s complaints and the content of 
the respondent’s pleadings, as well as its novelty, seeing that no rulings have been 
made by the Court on identical facts, having regard also to the nature of the 
Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Council of 
Administrative Justice for the Region of Sicily) as a national court adjudicating at 
last instance, and in view of the fact that the specific interpretative doubts 
indicated herein are not such as to support the conclusion that the correct 
interpretation of EU law is required with a degree of clarity that leaves no scope 
for any reasonable doubt, the following question must be referred to this Court for 
a preliminary ruling: ‘Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom 
to provide services set out in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU preclude national 
legislation, such as that laid down in Article 88 of the T.U.L.P.S., which, in order 
to satisfy requirements of public policy, public security and public health forming 
the basis of the derogations provided for in Articles 51 and 52 TFEU, which are 
also applicable to the freedom to provide services pursuant to Article 62 TFEU, 
and, in any event, in order to satisfy overriding reasons of public interest such as 
those which coincide with the need for the prevention and punishment of criminal 
offences, including organised crime (the so called Mafia, in Sicily) present, in 
particular, in certain areas of the national territory, [reserves] the pursuit of the 
activities of collecting bets on sporting events to data transmission centres (DTCs) 
holding a public security licence issued by the Questore (Police Commissioner), 
making the granting and effectiveness of that authorisation subject to the 
existence of a licence granted by the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli 
(Customs and Monopolies Agency) in favour of the bookmaker established in 
another member State on behalf of which the data transmission centre (DTC) 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2025 – CASE C-589/25 
 
20  
Anonymised version 
conducts its activities under an affiliation arrangement based on a gaming 
concession contract’. 
8. Stay of proceedings. 
[…] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
The Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Council of 
Administrative Justice for the Region of Sicily), in a judicial capacity, not giving 
final judgment on the appeal, […] refers to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union the question referred for a preliminary ruling indicated in paragraph 7.1. of 
the grounds and […] stays the proceedings. 
[Provisions relating to the Registry] […] 
Thus decided in Palermo […] on 26 June 2025 [Signature] 
[…]