Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2025:543
Date: 2025-07-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-687/24 – 1 
Case C-687/24 
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:  
18 October 2024 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 October 2024 
Applicant:  
‘C.B.S.-2009’ OOD 
Defendant:  
Izpalnitelen direktor na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Interpretation of the TFEU in accordance with point (a) of the first paragraph of 
Article 267 thereof 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Compatibility with Article 56 TFEU of national legislation which it is believed 
may restrict the activity of gambling operators, on the ground that it introduces a 
several-fold increase in State fees for issuing and maintaining licences to operate 
gambling services. The State fees increased by that legislative amendment are to 
be paid also by those gambling operators which possess a valid licence for the 
duration of which they have already paid a fee in the amount due under the 
statutory rules in force at the time when the licence was issued. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/24 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1. Is a legal rule of a Member State, such as that introduced by the provisions 
of Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi kam Zakona za 
darzhavnia byudzhet na Republika Balgaria za 2024 g. (Transitional and final 
provisions of the Law on the State budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for the year 
2024; ‘the ZDB 2024’), which increases by 200% the one-off flat-rate part of the 
State fee for the issuing and maintenance of a long-term licence in the gambling 
sector for both online and land-based operators, thereby restricting the activity of 
gambling operators, consistent with Article 56 TFEU? 
2. Is it consistent with the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of 
legitimate expectations if a Member State introduces legislation, such as that 
introduced by the provisions of Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Transitional and final 
provisions of the ZDB 2024, which increases by 200% the one-off flat-rate part of 
the State fee for the issuing and maintenance of a long-term licence in the 
gambling sector for both online and land-based operators, with the increased State 
fees applying retroactively, including to existing operators, which must pay the 
new amount of the fees proportionally, in accordance with a formula that is based 
on the remaining term of validity of their respective licences? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly Article 56 
Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union relied on 
Judgments of the Court: 
– 21 September 1999, Läärä and Others, C-124/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:435; 
– 21 October 1999, Zenatti, C-67/98, ECLI:EU:C:1999:514; 
– 11 September 2003, Anomar and Others, С-6/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:446; 
– 6 November 2003, Gambelli and Others, С-243/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:597; 
– 8 September 2009, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin 
International, С-42/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:519; 
– 10 September 2009, Plantanol, С-201/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:539; 
– 3 June 2010, Sporting Exchange, C-203/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:307; 
– 8 September 2010, Carmen Media Group, С-46/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:505; 
C.B.S.-2009 
 
3 
– 8 September 2010, Stoß, С-316/07, С-358/07 to С-360/07, С-409/07 and С-
410/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:504; 
– 30 June 2011, Zeturf, С-212/08, EU:C:2011:437; 
– 15 September 2011, Dickinger and Ömer, C-347/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:582; 
– 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others, С-390/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:281; 
– 1 July 2014, Ålands Vindkraft, С-573/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2037; 
– 22 January 2015, Stanley International Betting and Stanleybet Malta, 
C-463/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:25; 
– 11 June 2015, Berlington Hungary Tanacsado and Others, С-98/14, 
ECLI:EU:C:2015:386; 
– 12 June 2017, Digibet and Albers, С-156/13, ECLI:EU:C:2017:545. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Code of Tax and Social Security 
Procedure; ‘the DOPK’), particularly Article 129(3) and Article 131 
Zakon za hazarta (Law on Gambling; ‘the ZH’), particularly Article 30 
Zakon za darzhavnia byudzhet na Republika Balgaria za 2024 g. (Law on the 
State budget of the Republic of Bulgaria for the year 2024; ‘the ZDB 2024’), 
particularly Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi 
(Transitional and final provisions) of that law 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is a gambling operator and possesses 56 licences issued under the 
ZH, including a ‘licence to operate gambling services for slot-machine games’, 1 
which has a 10-year term of validity – until 30 September 2026, with an address in 
the city of Sofia (‘the licence’). 
2 When the licence was issued, the applicant paid the one-off State fees due under 
the provisions of Article 30 of the ZH (in the version in force at that time) for the 
 
1 Translator’s note: It is not ascertainable from the Bulgarian expression whether this means (1) 
the provision of gambling services and of slot-machine games, or (2) the provision of gambling 
services with slot machines, which is significant when it comes to determining whether 
Article 30(3) and (6) of the ZH are applicable or whether only Article 30(6) of the ZH is 
applicable. 
 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/24 
 
4  
issuing and maintenance of the licence, which covered the entire period of validity 
of that licence. 
3 Under the cited Article 30 of the ZH, State fees are levied, first, for the 
examination of the application documents relating to the requested licences, for 
amendments to previously issued licences, for the issuing of licences under that 
law and for other administrative services, those State fees being non-refundable 
under the law. Second, under Article 30(3) of the ZH, for the maintenance of the 
licence to operate gambling services a State fee is levied which corresponds to 
15% of the stakes placed for each gambling activity; in the case of gambling 
activities for which a fee or commission is collected for taking part, the State fee 
amounts to 20% of the value of the fees and commission payments received. 
Under Article 30(6) of the ZH, a one-off State fee of 100 000 Bulgarian leva 
(BGN) is levied for the issuing and maintenance of a 10-year licence for games 
played with slot machines. 
4 The Transitional and final provisions of the ZDB 2004 introduced changes and 
additions to the ZH. The amount of the one-off State fees for the issuing and 
maintenance of licences to provide slot-machine gaming was subject to a several-
fold increase. The cited Article 30(3) of the ZH was amended to the effect that a 
State fee is levied for maintaining a licence to operate gambling services which 
comprises two components, namely a one-off fee of BGN 300 000 and a variable 
element amounting to 20% of the difference between the value of the stakes 
received and that of the disbursed winnings and, in the case of games for which a 
fee or commission is collected for taking part, amounting to 20% of the collected 
fees or commission payments. The second cited provision, Article 30(6) of the 
ZH, was amended to the effect that a one-off State fee amounting to BGN 150 000 
is levied for the maintenance of a 10-year licence for the provision of slot-
machine games in a settlement with up to 500 000 inhabitants, while a one-off 
State fee amounting to BGN 300 000 is levied where the population of the 
settlement exceeds 500 000. 
5 Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Transitional and final provisions of the ZDB 2024 
introduced provisions lending retroactive force to the adopted amendments to 
Article 30 of the ZH. Gambling operators (including slot-machine operators) 
which were in possession of licences issued before 1 January 2024, that is to say, 
before the entry into force of the ZDB 2024, were required to pay a one-off pro 
rata amount of the fee introduced by Article 30(3) of the ZH, calculated on the 
basis of special formulae (on the basis of the remaining term of validity of the 
relevant licence). It was laid down that the one-off part of the amended fee owed 
was to be declared and paid by 28 February 2024; in the event of failure to submit 
a declaration on time, a pecuniary penalty of BGN 5 000 to 10 000 will be 
imposed. 
6 To avoid the imposition of a penalty and to continue the activity covered by the 
licence, the applicant made timely payment of the additional State fees, 
determined in accordance with the increase resulting from the abovementioned 
C.B.S.-2009 
 
5 
Transitional and final provisions of the ZDB 2024. Thereafter, on 7 March 2024, 
it applied to the Izpalnitelen direktor na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite 
(Executive Director of the National Revenue Agency; ‘the Director’) for the 
offsetting and refund of unduly paid State fees under the ZH amounting to 
BGN 82 500. 
7 In the pending proceedings before the referring court, the implicit rejection of the 
application by the administrative authority is being challenged. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 The applicant states that it had applied properly for the offsetting and refund of 
unduly paid State fees under the ZH but that the Director had not issued a decision 
within the prescribed time limit. That director had thus made an implicit decision 
to reject the application, according to the applicant. In the view of the applicant, 
Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Transitional and final provisions of the ZDB 2024 are 
unconstitutional and infringe EU law and international agreements to which 
Bulgaria has acceded; in addition, the applicant argues, the introduction of those 
provisions involved infringements of substantive provisions of national law. It 
contends that, given the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness of the substantive 
provisions which were the basis for the payment of the additional fees, those fees 
were unduly paid and should therefore be refunded. The Director, it asserts, 
should have determined that the amount paid by the applicant for the additional 
fees, since it had been unduly paid, was refundable; consequently, that director 
should have issued an offsetting and refund decision, on the basis of which the 
amount should have been refunded into the bank account of the company as 
designated in the application. The applicant contends that, since the Director did 
not issue a decision within the statutory time limit, that director implicitly refused 
to adopt the requested decision, which refusal, the applicant argued on the basis of 
extensively expounded legal considerations, was unlawful. 
9 In its action, the applicant submits that the proceedings should be stayed and that a 
preliminary ruling should be sought from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union on the questions reproduced by the referring court in the operative part of 
the order for reference. 
10 First, the applicant wishes to know whether national legislation which increases 
several-fold the flat-rate part of a State fee for issuing and maintaining a long-term 
licence to operate gambling services for both online and land-based operators, 
thereby restricting the activity of gambling operators, is consistent with the 
freedom to provide services defined in Article 56 TFEU. In particular, it asks 
whether that increase in State fees for activities covered by the ZH constitutes a 
restriction of the freedom to provide services. 
11 In the applicant’s view, such a huge increase in the fee may lead to impairment of 
its activity or make that activity less attractive. Such a retroactive increase in the 
fee, the applicant asserts, may prove to be an obstacle for new participants in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/24 
 
6  
gambling market and lead to the withdrawal of some existing participants. It sees 
a breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate 
expectations in the fact that the increase in the one-off fee affects gambling 
operators whose licence was issued before 1 January 2024. 
12 The applicant argues that the case-law listed above sets out conclusions and 
detailed interpretation and application guidance which are applicable to the 
present case. The facts of the present case, it contends, are similar to those 
described in the judgment in Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó and Others 
(C-98/14). In that judgment, the Court of Justice rules that national legislation 
such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for a 
transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the flat-rate tax to be paid on 
slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduces a 
proportional tax on that activity, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide 
services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it is liable to prohibit, 
impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide the services 
of operating slot machines in amusement arcades, this being a matter which it is 
for the national court to determine.  
13 The defendant contends that the conditions for a reference to the Court are not 
fulfilled in the request for a preliminary ruling and that the application is therefore 
inadmissible. That defendant argues that there are previous judgments of the Court 
of Justice which relate to the questions concerned and from which detailed 
directions and interpretation and application guidance can be drawn. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The referring court acknowledges that, in the judgment in Berlington Hungary 
Tanácsadó and Others (C-98/14), the Court of Justice explicitly ruled that 
national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without 
providing for a transitional period, introduced a five-fold increase in the flat-rate 
tax to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, 
introduced a proportional tax on that activity, constituted a restriction on the 
freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it was 
liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to 
provide the services of operating slot machines in amusement arcades, this being a 
matter which it was for the national court to determine. It is also settled case-law 
that the Member States are free to set the objectives of their policy on betting and 
gambling according to their own scale of values and, where appropriate, to define 
in detail the level of protection sought. The restrictive measures that they impose 
must, however, be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest and satisfy 
proportionality requirements. 
15 Even if it were assumed that the provision contained in Article 30(6) of the ZH, 
read in conjunction with Paragraph 22 of the Transitional and final provisions of 
the ZDB 2024, restricted the activity of gambling operators to a certain extent, 
C.B.S.-2009 
 
7 
that may be permissible, since the restrictions on the freedom to provide services 
may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. In that context, it is 
not for the Court of Justice but for the national court to determine which 
objectives the national legislation is actually pursuing. 
16 The referring court assumes that the applicant has a legal interest in bringing an 
action, as its financial interests are harmed by the domestic rules at issue in the 
present case, which are alleged to infringe EU law. The assessment as to whether 
the provisions of Paragraphs 18 to 22 of the Transitional and final provisions of 
the ZDB 2024 infringe EU law is relevant to the present case because, in 
accordance with the binding case-law of the Court of Justice, the obligation of the 
national court to refrain from applying national legislation introducing a fee which 
infringes EU law also makes it incumbent on the national court to find in favour 
of applicants seeking a refund of that fee. 
17 The referring court considers it reasonable to discuss the question of inconsistency 
of the domestic rules cited above with Article 56 TFEU, since that article requires 
not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against 
providers of services who are established in another Member State, but also the 
abolition of any restriction on the freedom to provide services, even if that 
restriction applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those 
of other Member States, where that restriction is liable to prohibit, impede or 
render less attractive the activities of the service provider.  
18 Although there is no discrimination in the present case between Bulgarian and 
foreign companies, it is entirely possible that barriers to the activity of gambling 
operators may arise as a result of the drastic increase in the retroactive State fees 
at issue. The drastic increase of the State fees, especially with retroactive effect, 
constitutes an extraordinarily high barrier to the market entry of new participants, 
leading to contraction of the market and putting competition at risk there. That 
could lead also to new traders being deterred from entering the sector because of 
unease caused by the emergence of legal uncertainty. A heavy financial burden is 
being placed on companies operating in that market, because they are required to 
pay considerable amounts within brief time limits without any provision for such 
payments having been made in their business plans. That in itself presupposes the 
availability of considerable liquid assets. As a result, the danger arises that many 
small and medium-sized businesses will be forced to withdraw from the gambling 
sector or even to file for bankruptcy. The brief time limit for payment of the 
additional fees by operators of gambling services which are already licensed is a 
fundamental reason for the withdrawal from the market of many participants 
which have already paid all of the State fees they owe in the course of the 
completed procedure for the issuing of their licences. In the view of the referring 
court, however, that is in breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate 
expectations and of legal certainty. For such a restrictive legislative measure to be 
admissible, it must satisfy the requirements arising from the case-law of the Court, 
that is to say, it must be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest and 
must be proportionate. In the present case there are doubts as to the presence of a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-687/24 
 
8  
justification constituting an overriding objective of general interest capable of 
justifying the restriction of fundamental freedoms like the one described, and 
therefore it is impossible for the measure also to be proportionate. 
19 The referring court considers it possible that there is a breach of the principles of 
legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. It states that the 
principle of legal certainty, the corollary of which is the principle of the protection 
of legitimate expectations, requires that rules of law be clear, precise and 
predictable in their effect, especially when they may have adverse consequences 
for individuals and undertakings. The Court’s case-law, whereby the requirement 
of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable 
to entail financial consequences, is unambiguous. For this reason, the parties 
concerned ought to be able to expect that the fee for issuing and maintaining a 
licence throughout its term of validity will not be increased retroactively, 
particularly if the change in the amount is considerable and therefore has an 
extremely adverse effect on those parties. In the view of the referring court, 
gambling operators which, in accordance with the applicable rules, have paid the 
one-off fixed State fees for the issuing and maintenance of their licences expect 
that their status will not be changed and will remain firmly established once they 
have fulfilled all of the obligations under the rules in force at the time when their 
licences were issued. It is to be assumed that there is no justification for 
introducing legislation requiring gambling operators to pay an additional amount 
200% higher than the sum which they have already paid in order to continue 
exercising the rights which they had already obtained by virtue of their licence. It 
is the settled case-law of the Court of Justice that such a national rule is in breach 
of the abovementioned principles in the absence of a public interest which 
overrides the beneficiary’s interest in the preservation of a legal status which the 
beneficiary has been regarding as firmly established. 
20 In addition, the referring court points out that the principle of non-retroactivity is 
part of the broader principle of legal certainty in EU law, which is closely 
connected to the concept of legitimate expectations. From the case-law of the 
Court of Justice, it may be concluded that a divergence from the principle of non-
retroactivity of legal provisions is permissible only in cases where the objective to 
be achieved requires such divergence and, at the same time, proper account is 
taken of the legitimate expectations of the parties concerned. The referring court 
emphasises that the Court of Justice weighs up the advantages and disadvantages 
so as to be able to determine whether the introduction of a provision with 
retroactive effect is proportionate and justified. Consequently, the general 
principle of non-retroactivity does not apply if the impact of retroactivity on the 
parties concerned would be purely beneficial and not detrimental. Conversely, 
since the effects on the addressees of the legislation at issue are purely 
unfavourable, there is no justification for levying the increased State fees on those 
of them which have already paid for and received their licences. It may therefore 
be inferred that, in the present case, there is no overriding public interest and the 
legitimate expectations of gambling operators cannot be deemed to have been 
taken into account. 
C.B.S.-2009 
 
9 
21 On the basis of the foregoing legal considerations and reasoning, the referring 
court takes the view that it is entirely possible that the provisions of Paragraphs 18 
to 22 of the Transitional and final provisions of the ZDB 2024 are in breach of EU 
law, namely Article 56 TFEU, and that the levying of the increased State fees on 
operators which are already licensed, having properly paid the amount in State 
fees in accordance with the law applicable at the time when their licences were 
issued, is potentially impermissible and in breach of the fundamental principles of 
EU law.