Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:22
Date: 2026-01-12
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-437/24 – 1 
Case C-437/24 
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: 
20 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
31 May 2024 
Applicant: 
Cirsa Italia SpA 
Defendants: 
Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli 
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action seeking annulment of various administrative measures that, in 
implementing a legislative provision, have imposed an unexpected and onerous 
fee on economic operators that provide gaming services using entertainment and 
recreation machines on the basis of concessions previously awarded by the State. 
The fee is due under a statutory ‘technical extension’ scheme set up for the 
purpose of reorganising the sector of public networks for the collection of bets, 
upgrading the machines to incorporate new technology, guaranteeing tax revenue 
and protecting public health. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, a request is made for the 
interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts and of the 
provisions of EU law on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-437/24 
 
2  
services, to ascertain whether they preclude a national law under which 
concessions for the constitution and operation of the online management network 
for gaming using entertainment and recreation machines are subject to a ‘technical 
extension’, as a result of which existing concession holders are obliged to pay the 
State a significant fee, without the awarding authority being able, at the request of 
the interested parties, to suspend or reduce the fee in question to take into account 
the deterioration in the finances of those concession holders due to the decrease in 
business resulting from unforeseen events not attributable to them. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, as well as 
the general principles inferred from the Treaty (in particular Articles 49 and 56 
TFEU), be interpreted as meaning that they may also apply to concessions for the 
constitution and operation of the online management network for gaming using 
entertainment and recreation machines, namely amusement with prizes (‘AWP’) 
machines and video lottery terminals (‘VLTs’), where those concessions were 
awarded by a public and open tendering procedure launched in 2011 and 
concluded in 2013, had subsequently expired and were extended by law 
(Article 1(124)(b) of legge 29 dicembre 2022 n. 197 (Law No 197 of 
29 December 2022)), which entered into force after the directive’s entry into force 
and after the expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Directive 
2014/23/EU, in addition to the general principles inferred from the Treaty (in 
particular Articles 49 and 56 TFEU), be interpreted as always guaranteeing the 
administration the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, an 
administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the exercise of the 
concessions (with or without a new tender procedure, depending on whether or 
not the renegotiation of the contractual balance qualifies as a substantial change), 
in cases where unforeseen and unforeseeable events not attributable to the parties 
occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions of operating risk, for 
as long as those conditions persist and for the time required to reinstate, where 
possible, the concessions’ original operating conditions? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts: recitals 35, 75 and 76 and 
Articles 5(1)(b) and 43 
Article 49 TFEU – freedom of establishment within the European Union 
Article 56 TFEU – freedom to provide services 
CIRSA ITALY 
 
3 
Judgment of the Court of 2 September 2021, Joined Cases C-721/19 and 
C-722/19, EU:C:2021:672, paragraphs 24 to 30 and 35 to 36, and the case-law 
cited therein. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 1(124)(b) of legge 29 dicembre 2022, n. 197 – Bilancio di previsione dello 
Stato per l'anno finanziario 2023 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2023-2025 
(Law No 197 of 29 December 2022 on the State budget for the 2023 financial year 
and the multiannual budget for the three-year period 2023-2025; ‘Law 
No 197/2022’), which, for the purpose of reorganising the sector of public 
networks for the collection of bets, upgrading the machines to incorporate new 
technology, guaranteeing tax revenue and protecting public health, introduced a 
technical extension, in return for consideration, of the concessions for the 
constitution and operation of the online management network for gaming using 
entertainment and recreation machines. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In Italy, the constitution and operation of the online management network for 
gaming using entertainment and recreation machines is reserved to the State and is 
entrusted to economic operators holding concessions awarded by public and open 
tendering procedure. The State has entrusted the management of this sector to the 
Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli (Customs and Monopolies Agency, Italy; 
‘the ADM’). 
2 The machines in question are governed by Article 110(6) of the Testo Unico 
Leggi Pubblica Sicurezza del 18 giugno 1931 n.773 (Consolidated Law No 773 of 
18 June 1931 on public security) and fall into two categories: 
(a) ‘amusement with prizes’ (‘AWP’) machines, which are activated by 
inserting a coin or using special means of electronic payment and present, in 
addition to the element of chance, elements of skill, which allow the player to 
choose, at the start of or during the game, the options considered most favourable 
among those offered by the game; these are subject to statutory limits on the 
maximum stakes and winnings; 
(b) ‘video lottery terminals’ (‘VLTs’), which are activated solely in the presence 
of a connection to a processing system of the ADM online network and in 
principle allow larger bets and winnings laid down by ministerial decree. 
3 Both types of machines must be connected to an online network set up by the 
ADM for monitoring purposes. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-437/24 
 
4  
4 On the basis of public and open tendering procedures, one or more concession 
holders are selected to operate the network and the machines connected to it in 
return for a fee. 
5 The applicant is one of those concession holders, having been awarded a nine-year 
concession, concluded on 20 March 2013, following a tender procedure launched 
with a call for tenders on 8 August 2011, published on 11 August 2011 in the 
Official Journal of the European Union No 2011/S 153-254653 (‘the concession’). 
6 Under that concession, the fee for the activities and services carried out is 
determined on the basis of the collection of bets through AWP and VLT 
machines, net of: (i) the amount payable to the ADM, equivalent to 0.8 % of the 
amount staked; (ii) the amount of tax paid to the State in the form of the single 
fiscal levy (‘prelievo erariale unico’ or ‘PREU’); (iii) the amount payable to 
players in the form of winnings; (iv) the amount payable to other entities involved, 
on various grounds, in the collection of bets. 
7 In the years that followed, several events occurred that considerably altered the 
economic and financial balance of the concession, resulting in the applicant 
incurring significant losses from 2021 onwards. The applicant mentions in 
particular: the emergency measures adopted in 2020 and 2021 to close 
establishments owing to the COVID-19 pandemic; the increase in the PREU; the 
introduction, from 1 January 2020, of the health card for access to VLTs, which 
reduced the participation in gaming because players were unaccustomed to 
carrying the health card with them, the cards sometimes malfunctioned and they 
were not available to foreign players; the enactment in 2019 of legge n. 160/2019 
(Law No 160/2019) which introduced a 20 % levy on winnings above EUR 200; 
the investments needed to replace AWP machines with AWP-R machines; the 
introduction in 2017 of a maximum number of operating permits for AWP 
machines; the progressive reduction of the payout from some entertainment 
machines. 
8 In that context, the concession, which was originally due to expire on 20 March 
2022, was extended as a result of various provisions – most recently, a ‘technical 
extension’ until 31 December 2024 introduced, in return for consideration, by 
Article 1(124)(b) of Law No 197/2022. 
9 Specifically, concession holders were charged a 15 % increase in the 
consideration due at the start of the concession, calculated in proportion to the 
duration of the extension and the total number of AWP and VLT machines owned 
by the concession holder as of 31 October 2022. 
10 In June 2023, by the measures contested in the main proceedings, the ADM: 
– informed the applicant of the consideration due under the technical extension; 
– in response to the applicant’s request to disapply the relevant provisions in order 
to restore the economic and financial balance of the concession, already 
CIRSA ITALY 
 
5 
compromised by the abovementioned events, declared that it was limited to 
applying Law No 197/2022 and that it lacked the authority to disapply it or to 
apply it only partially. 
11 The applicant appealed the measures before the TAR per il Lazio (Regional 
Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), seeking their annulment and for the ADM to 
be ordered to initiate an administrative procedure to amend the conditions for the 
exercise of the concessions and restore its economic and financial balance. 
12 The applicant claimed, inter alia, that the legal provisions implemented by the 
ADM in the contested measures were contrary to EU law, and in particular 
Directive 2014/23/EU, as well as the freedom of establishment under Article 49 
TFEU and the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 As regards the possibility of referring a question to the Court of Justice for a 
preliminary ruling, the referring court informed the parties of the possibility of a 
stay of proceedings pending the Court’s answer to certain questions, similar to 
those raised in the present case, already submitted by the Consiglio di Stato 
(Council of State, Italy) to the Court, in particular in Cases C-728/22, C-729/22, 
C-730/22 and C-50/23. 
14 However, the applicant insisted that the referring court proceed directly with a 
reference to the Court of Justice of the questions of compatibility of EU law with 
the technical extension of the concession, so as to enable it to participate directly 
in adversarial proceedings before the Court. 
15 The referring court observes that, in choosing between the two references that are 
theoretically possible – a reference to the Court of Justice and to the Corte 
costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) – priority must be given to the former, 
as it may lead to the disapplication of potentially conflicting national legislation, 
which would mean that the question of constitutionality is not relevant. 
16 In the first place, the referring court observes that the concession concluded 
between the applicant and the ADM on 20 March 2013 following a public and 
open tendering procedure falls within the scope of Directive 2014/23, irrespective 
of the fact that the directive entered into force on 17 April 2014 – that is to say, 
after the concession. 
17 The main proceedings concern the compatibility of EU law with the ‘technical 
extension’ of the concession, which the national legislature introduced with Law 
No 197/2022, and therefore after the entry into force of Directive 2014/23. 
18 In that regard, the referring court recalls the principles developed by the Court of 
Justice in a comparable situation to the one at issue, involving a lottery 
concession, and in particular the principle that, in the event of a substantial 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-437/24 
 
6  
amendment of a concession contract, the EU legislation in the light of which that 
modification must be assessed is that in force at the date of that amendment. The 
Court has stated in that context that the fact that the original concession contract 
was concluded prior to the adoption of EU rules on the matter is therefore without 
consequence in that regard (judgment of 2 September 2021, Joined Cases 
C-721/19 and C-722/19, EU:C:2021:672, paragraphs 28 to 30 and the case-law 
cited). 
19 That being the case, the referring court observes that Directive 2014/23, and in 
particular recitals 35, 75 and 76 and Articles 5(1)(b) and 43, appears to establish a 
general principle according to which the contracting authority may not be 
deprived of the discretion to initiate, at the request of the interested parties, a 
procedure to amend the conditions of the concession (if necessary by launching, in 
the event of a ‘substantial’ change, a new tender procedure), in cases where 
unforeseeable events occur that have a significant impact on the normal conditions 
of operating risk, for as long as those conditions persist and for the time required 
to reinstate, where possible, the original operating conditions. 
20 The Italian Council of State has already referred the same type of question to the 
Court of Justice in relation to a similar type of concession, concerning the 
operation of bingo halls (Cases C-728/22 and C-729/22). 
21 In the second place, and in any event, the referring court points out that, even if 
the application of Directive 2014/23 were to be excluded, Articles 49 (freedom of 
establishment) and 56 (freedom to provide services) TFEU would apply, since the 
economic activity of an undertaking is at stake. 
22 The referring court notes that the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that 
legislation of a Member State which makes the exercise of an economic activity, 
such as the management of certain games of chance, subject to a licensing 
requirement constitutes an obstacle to the freedoms guaranteed in Articles 49 and 
56 TFEU, but that such a restriction may be justified by overriding reasons of 
public interest, such as consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and 
incitement to squander money on gambling (judgment of the Court of 
2 September 2021, Joined Cases C-721/19 and C-722/19, EU:C:2021:672, 
paragraphs 35 to 36 and the case-law cited). 
23 The referring court points out that, in the present case, the reasons that led the 
legislature to introduce the technical extension in return for consideration, as 
provided for in Article 1(124)(b) of Law No 197/2022, were the need to 
reorganise the sector of public networks for the collection of bets, upgrade the 
machines to incorporate new technology, guarantee tax revenue and protect public 
health. 
24 However, even if those objectives are overriding reasons of public interest, doubt 
remains as to the compatibility with EU legislation of such reasons with respect to 
the actual measure adopted by the national legislature, in terms of the necessity, 
CIRSA ITALY 
 
7 
indispensability, consistency, proportionality and benefits of the means in relation 
to the aim pursued. 
25 In conclusion, the referring court submits the abovementioned questions to the 
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The questions are relevant for the 
purposes of the main proceedings since, in the event of the incompatibility with 
EU legislation of the national law on the technical extension of the concession 
concluded by the applicant with the ADM, the referring court would have to 
uphold the application, and thus set aside the administrative measures issued on 
the basis of that extension.