Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:110
Date: 2020-02-26
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

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:  
14 December 2018 
Referring court:  
Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Provincial Tax Court, 
Parma, Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
15 October 2018 
Applicants:  
Stanleyparma Sas 
Stanleybet Malta Ltd 
Defendant:  
Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — 
SOT Parma 
  
Subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings  
Appeal against a notification of tax liability in which the Agenzia delle Dogane e 
dei Monopoli (Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency) declared that a data 
transmission centre in Parma, as the ‘manager’ of betting activities on behalf of 
Stanleybet Malta Ltd, is the taxable person liable to the imposta unica sui concorsi 
pronostici e sulle scommesse (single tax on betting and pools), and that Stanleybet 
Malta, as the party on whose behalf the betting activities are managed, is jointly 
liable with the data transmission centre for payment of that tax. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
The potential conflict with the freedom to provide services, the right of 
establishment and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, 
interpreted in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-788/18 
 
2  
Union on gambling and betting and on tax discrimination, of national legislation 
on the methods of taxation — for the purposes of the single tax on betting and 
pools — of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data (‘DTCs’) on behalf 
of bookmakers established in a different Member State and which are not licensed 
to operate in Italy, taking into account the opinion on that legislation expressed by 
the Corte Costituzionale (Italian Constitutional Court). 
Second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred 
(1) Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, 
particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case 
C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza 
(Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in 
Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and 
Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal 
treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the 
judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted 
as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which 
makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of 
bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those 
sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly 
those bookmakers jointly with their national intermediaries, liable to the single tax 
on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of D.Lgs. 23.12.1998 n. 504 
(Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998), as amended by 
Article 1(66)(b) of the Legge di Stabilità 2011 (Italian Stability Law 2011)? 
(2) Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting services, 
particularly the judgments in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case 
C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza 
(Case C-375/14), and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments in 
Lindman (Case C-42/02), Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08) and Blanco and 
Fabretti (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13), and the principles of equal 
treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the 
judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted 
as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which 
makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of 
bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, and particularly those 
sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and not the 
national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of State-licensed 
bookmakers involved in the same activity, liable to the single tax on betting and 
pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 
23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011? 
STANLEYPARMA SAS AND STANLEYBET MALTA 
 
3 
(3) Do Articles 52 and 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice on gambling and betting 
services, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, having 
regard also to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 23 January 2018, 
preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation enshrined in 
Article 1(644)(g) of L. 190/2014 (Law No 190/2014), which requires national 
intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in 
a different EU Member State, particularly those sharing the characteristics of the 
company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly those bookmakers jointly with their 
national intermediaries, to pay the single tax on betting provided for in Legislative 
Decree No 504/1998, on a flat-rate taxable amount corresponding to three times 
the average amount collected in the province where the business or collection 
point is located, as inferred from the data recorded in the national totaliser for the 
tax period preceding the reference period? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Articles 49, 52, 56 and 57 TFEU — freedom to provide services and right of 
establishment  
Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, particularly as regards 
taxation 
Interpretation of those principles in the judgments of the Court of Justice 
mentioned in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
Provisions of national law cited 
(A) Provisions relating to Questions 1 and 2 
Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998 on the reorganisation of the 
single tax on betting and pools pursuant to Article 1(2) of legge 3 agosto 1998, n. 
288 (Law No 288 of 3 August 1998) 
– Article 1: ‘[The tax] is payable on betting and pools of any kind, in relation to 
any event, even if taking place abroad …’. 
– Article 3: ‘1. Anyone organising betting and pools, even under licence, is a 
taxable person for the purposes of the single tax.’ 
Decreto del Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze del 1° marzo 2006, Norme 
concernenti la disciplina delle scommesse a quota fissa su eventi sportivi diversi 
dalle corse dei cavalli e su eventi non sportivi da adottare ai sensi dell’articolo 1, 
comma 286, della legge 30 dicembre 2004, n. 311 (Decree of the Ministry of 
Economic Affairs and Finance of 1 March 2006 regulating fixed-odds betting on 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-788/18 
 
4  
sporting and non-sporting events (other than horse racing), to be adopted pursuant 
to Article 1(286) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004) 
– Article 16: ‘… the licence holder shall pay the amounts due by way of a single 
tax …’. 
Legge del 13 dicembre 2010, n. 220, Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio 
annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge di stabilità 2011) (Law No 220 of 
13 December 2010 laying down the rules for establishing the annual and 
multiannual State budget (Stability Law 2011)) 
- Article 1(66): 
‘(a) Article 1 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998 shall be 
understood to mean that the single tax … is still due even if the collection of bets, 
including online bets, takes place in the absence of a valid licence …; 
(b) Article 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998 shall be 
understood to mean that a taxable person is anyone who, even without … a 
licence …, manages, by any means, including electronically, on his or her own 
account or on behalf of third parties, even if established abroad, pools or betting of 
any kind. If the activity is carried out on behalf of third parties, the person on 
whose behalf the activity is carried out shall be jointly liable for payment of the 
tax …’. 
Under Article 1(64) of Law No 220/2010, the purpose of taxing DTCs affiliated to 
bookmakers without a licence is ‘… to make more effective and efficient efforts 
to prevent gambling managed and practised in a form or manner or on terms that 
are not lawful or safe, in view of the State monopoly on gambling …, public 
order, the prevention of underage gambling and the infiltration of organised crime 
within the gambling sector, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the principle of 
fair taxation in the gambling sector and protecting the tax base and revenue from 
the phenomena of tax evasion and avoidance …’. 
Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 29.09.1973, n. 600, Disposizioni comuni 
in materia di accertamento delle imposte sui redditi (Presidential Decree No 600 
of 29 September 1973 laying down general rules for income tax assessment) 
- Article 64: 
‘Anyone who is legally required to pay taxes on behalf of third parties, on the 
basis of events or situations pertaining to such third parties or by way of a 
payment on account, shall claim back the amount paid unless otherwise expressly 
stated. 
The substitute may be involved in the tax assessment process. 
STANLEYPARMA SAS AND STANLEYBET MALTA 
 
5 
Anyone who is legally required to pay tax jointly with third parties, for events or 
situations pertaining solely to such third parties, may also claim back the amount 
paid.’ 
(B) Provisions relating to Question 3 
Legge del 23 dicembre 2014, n. 190, Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio 
annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge di stabilità 2015) (Law No 190 of 
23 December 2014 laying down the rules for establishing the annual and 
multiannual State budget (Stability Law 2015)), as amended by legge n. 208/2015 
(Law No 208/2015) 
– Article 1(644): ‘(g) [for persons offering bets with cash winnings in Italy, on 
their own account or on behalf of third parties, including foreign third parties, 
without being linked to the national totaliser of the Italian Customs and 
Monopolies Agency] the single tax … shall apply to a flat-rate taxable amount 
corresponding to three times the average amount collected in the province 
where the business or collection point is located, as inferred from the data 
recorded in the national totaliser for the tax period preceding the reference 
period’. 
Legge del 28 dicembre 2015, n. 208, Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio 
annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge di stabilità 2016) (Law No 208 of 
28 December 2015 laying down the rules for establishing the annual and 
multiannual State budget (Stability Law 2016)) 
– Article 1(945): ‘With effect from 1 January 2016, for fixed-odds bets …, the 
single tax … shall apply to the difference between the amounts staked and the 
winnings paid out …’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 In Italy, the organisation of games of chance, including the collection of bets, is in 
principle reserved for the State. A licence must be obtained from the State before 
police authorisation is then applied for. 
2 In the judgments delivered in Gambelli (Case C-243/01), Placanica (Case 
C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza 
(Case C-375/14), the Court of Justice found the three tenders for awarding those 
licences, held by the Italian Government in 1999, 2006 and 2012, respectively, to 
be contrary to EU law. 
3 Since Stanleybet Malta Ltd (a subsidiary of Stanley International Betting Ltd, 
registered in the United Kingdom; ‘Stanleybet Malta’) is not licensed to operate in 
Italy, it uses data transmission centres (‘DTCs’) located in premises that are open 
to the public. The DTCs record and transmit the details of bets electronically to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-788/18 
 
6  
Stanleybet Malta, which accepts and manages the relevant betting contracts with 
players. 
4 Following the introduction of legislation providing an authentic interpretation, it 
has been clarified that taxable persons for the purposes of the single tax on betting 
and pools (‘the single tax’) — in principle payable by persons who ‘manage 
betting and pools, even under licence’ (Article 3 of Legislative Decree 
No 504/1998) — are not only the licence holders, but anyone who collects bets on 
their own account or on behalf of third parties, even if located abroad, without a 
licence or whose licence has expired; in the case of management on behalf of third 
parties, the latter are jointly liable for the tax [Article 1(66)(a) and (b) of Law 
No 220/2010]. 
5 In this respect, Stanleyparma Sas (‘Stanleyparma’), a DTC operating in Italy on 
behalf of Stanleybet Malta, received a notification of tax liability for the 2011 tax 
year in which the Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency (‘ADM’), in 
accordance with those provisions, deemed that DTC to be a ‘manager on behalf of 
third parties’ of betting activities and therefore a taxable person for the purposes 
of the single tax. Moreover, it declared Stanleybet Malta, as the ‘party on whose 
behalf the activity is carried out’, to be jointly liable with the DTC for payment of 
the tax. 
The essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
6 Stanleyparma and Stanleybet Malta challenged the notification of tax liability 
before the referring court, in the process requesting that various questions 
regarding the compatibility of national legislation — as applied by the ADM — 
with EU law be referred to the Court of Justice. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 The referring court points out that the question of the constitutional legitimacy of 
the abovementioned legislation was previously referred to the Italian 
Constitutional Court in another tax case concerning similar notifications of tax 
liability, issued by the ADM against Stanleybet and its DTCs for the 2008 and 
2009 tax years. 
8 In its judgment No 27 of 23 January 2018, the Italian Constitutional Court, finding 
that the contested legislation providing an authentic interpretation could not be 
applied retroactively, declared those provisions to be unconstitutional only in so 
far as they provided that, for tax years prior to 2011, DTCs operating on behalf of 
bookmakers without a licence were liable to the single tax. As a result of this 
ruling, DTCs of this type are liable to the single tax with effect from the 2011 tax 
year jointly with the bookmaker on whose behalf they operate. 
STANLEYPARMA SAS AND STANLEYBET MALTA 
 
7 
9 The Constitutional Court noted that the taxation of DTCs affiliated to bookmakers 
without a licence was intended ‘to make more effective and efficient efforts to 
prevent gambling managed and practised in a form or manner or on terms that are 
not lawful or safe, in view of the State monopoly on gambling …, public order, 
the prevention of underage gambling and the infiltration of organised crime within 
the gambling sector, thereby ensuring increased effectiveness of the principle of 
fair taxation in the gambling sector and protecting the tax base and revenue from 
the phenomena of tax evasion and avoidance …’ (Article 1(64) of Law 
No 220/2010). 
10 However, according to the referring court, that judgment of the Constitutional 
Court failed to allay doubts as to the compatibility of the legislation in question 
with the principles of EU law. 
11 First of all, that legislation treats operators who have obtained a State licence to 
organise betting (licence holders) on an equal footing, for tax purposes, with 
foreign operators without a licence, making no distinction between unlicensed 
foreign operators operating illegally in Italy and those which, like Stanleybet 
Malta, are authorised pursuant to EU and national case-law to collect bets in Italy 
through DTCs. 
12 More specifically, under the legislation at issue, Stanleybet Malta would be taxed 
twice (in Malta and Italy). By placing it at a disadvantage and discriminating 
against it in comparison with national operators, this impedes its right of 
establishment and the free movement of services. 
13 Furthermore, DTCs affiliated to national or foreign bookmakers without a licence 
are considered taxable persons for the purposes of the single tax. They are 
required in the first instance to pay the tax as ‘managers’ of the betting activity 
‘on behalf of’ the bookmakers, according to the ADM’s current interpretation of 
the tax legislation at issue, as demonstrated by the notification of tax liability 
contested by the applicants. 
14 However, as noted in several Italian judgments cited by the referring court, the 
DTCs merely provide data transmission activities for the bookmaker, which then 
enters into the betting contract directly with the player and manages the 
organisation of the bets. The DTC, which is not a party to this contract, is 
remunerated by means of commission based solely on the volume of bookings 
transmitted (and not on the outcome or the margins that the bookmaker earns from 
the bets). The DTC has no organisational or decision-making autonomy as regards 
the management of that business. 
15 In that respect, the Constitutional Court has found that the DTCs in question can 
avoid bearing the final burden of the single tax by agreeing a commission with the 
bookmaker that includes that tax. 
16 Moreover, in the opinion of the referring court, the need for such an agreement 
highlights the concerns over the tax legislation at issue, which in this respect 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-788/18 
 
8  
appears unable on its own to ensure that the tax levied on the DTC is reasonable, 
requiring contractual agreements which, by their nature, tend to benefit the 
stronger party — in this case, the bookmaker. 
17 In addition, the DTC is none the less exposed to the risk of an action for 
compensation under Article 64(3) of DPR 600/1973 (Presidential Decree 
No 600/1973), brought by Stanleybet, if it were required to pay the single tax as 
joint debtor. 
18 Second, there are concerns over the difference in treatment, since this legislation, 
which makes DTCs affiliated to national or foreign bookmakers without a licence 
liable to the single tax, imposes no tax liability on DTCs affiliated to State-
licensed bookmakers, since in the latter case the single tax is levied directly on the 
licence holder. 
19 Thus, although all DTCs perform similar activities for bookmakers, there is clear 
discrimination against DTCs acting for bookmakers without a licence, since those 
DTCs face an additional tax burden. 
20 As a result, the same treatment is applied to two very different situations — 
namely, a national licence holder and a DTC affiliated to a national or foreign 
bookmaker without a licence, given that both are taxable persons for the purposes 
of the single tax, even though they have a different structure and different 
activities. In effect, the licence holder operates as a bookmaker, fixes the odds, 
enters into betting contracts, assumes the risks and collects the profits from this 
activity, whereas, as pointed out above, the DTC simply transmits the data and 
provides logistical support. 
21 As a third and final point, the Italian legislation at issue was recently amended 
with the introduction, as from 1 January 2016, of new methods for calculating the 
tax base for the purposes of the single tax. 
22 First of all, with regard to national licence holders, the taxable amount is no longer 
the amount staked, but the difference between the stakes and the winnings paid 
out (Article 1(945) of Law No 208/2015). Therefore, the single tax has changed 
from being an indirect tax based on the consumption of wealth by the person 
placing the bet, to a direct tax based on the economic activity of bookmaking, 
linked to the taxpaying capacity of the licensed bookmaker. 
23 Conversely, for DTCs affiliated to bookmakers without a licence, as in the 
applicants’ case, the law has established a flat-rate tax base, again from 1 January 
2016, equal to three times the average amount collected in the province where the 
business or collection point is located, as inferred from the data recorded in the 
national totaliser for the tax period preceding the reference period 
[Article 1(644)(g) of Law No 190/2014, as amended by Law No 208/2015]. In 
addition to the onerous and unreasonable nature of the change in the tax base, this 
provision has maintained the original nature of the single tax (that of an indirect 
STANLEYPARMA SAS AND STANLEYBET MALTA 
 
9 
tax) only for DTCs affiliated to bookmakers that are not licence holders, based on 
the consumption of wealth by the person placing the bet. 
24 The referring court is concerned therefore that the recent amendments to Italian 
tax legislation differentiate in a discriminatory manner between the treatment of 
DTCs affiliated to foreign operators without a licence, such as the applicant 
Stanleyparma, and those affiliated to national licence holders, or even the licence 
holders themselves, which would thus have an additional advantage. 
25 In this context, the referring court definitively submits to the Court of Justice of 
the European Union three questions for a preliminary ruling concerning, 
respectively, the compatibility of the three contested aspects of the national 
legislation on the single tax, as described above, with: 
– Articles 49, 52, 56 and 57 TFEU, given that this legislation impedes the 
exercise of the freedom to provide services and of the right of establishment by 
parties in the same position as the applicants, placing them at a disadvantage in 
comparison with licensed bookmakers and their intermediaries carrying out the 
same activities. Specifically, reference is made to the case-law of the Court of 
Justice on gambling and betting, such as the judgments in Gambelli (Case 
C-243/01), Placanica (Case C-338/04), Costa and Cifone (Joined Cases 
C-72/10 and C-77/10) and Laezza (Case C-375/14); 
– the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, particularly as regards 
taxation and the judgments of the Court of Justice in Lindman (Case C-42/02), 
Commission v Spain (Case C-153/08), and Blanco and Fabretti (Joined Cases 
C-344/13 and C-367/13), given that this legislation simultaneously applies the 
same rules to different situations and different rules to the same situations, 
thereby constituting unlawful discrimination against the applicants.