14

In those circumstances, the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Provincial Tax Court, Parma) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 [TFEU], the case-law of the [Court] on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments [of 6 November 2003, Gambelli and Others (C‑243/01, EU:C:2003:597), of 6 March 2007, Placanica and Others (C‑338/04, C‑359/04 and C‑360/04, EU:C:2007:133), of 16 February 2012, Costa and Cifone (C‑72/10 and C‑77/10, EU:C:2012:80), and of 28 January 2016, Laezza (C‑375/14, EU:C:2016:60)], and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments [of 13 November 2003, Lindman (C‑42/02, EU:C:2003:613), of 6 October 2009, Commission v Spain (C‑153/08, EU:C:2009:618), and of 22 October 2014, Blanco and Fabretti (C‑344/13 and C‑367/13, EU:C:2014:2311)], and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Corte costituzionale (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, in particular those sharing the characteristics of [Stanleybet Malta] and, secondly, those bookmakers jointly and severally with their national intermediaries, liable to the single tax […]? (2) Are Articles 56, 57 and 52 [TFEU], the case-law of the [Court] on gambling and betting services, particularly the judgments [of 6 November 2003, Gambelli and Others (C‑243/01, EU:C:2003:597), of 6 March 2007, Placanica and Others (C‑338/04, C‑359/04 and C‑360/04, EU:C:2007:133), of 16 February 2012, Costa and Cifone (C‑72/10 and C‑77/10 EU:C:2012:80), and of 28 January 2016, Laezza (C‑375/14, EU:C:2016:60)], and on tax discrimination, particularly the judgments [of 13 November 2003, Lindman (C‑42/02, EU:C:2003:613), of 6 October 2009, Commission v Spain (C‑153/08, EU:C:2009:618), and of 22 October 2014, Blanco and Fabretti (C‑344/13 and C‑367/13, EU:C:2014:2311)], and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination under EU law, having regard also to the judgment of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) of 23 January 2018, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation at issue, which makes only national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, in particular those sharing the characteristics of [Stanleybet Malta], and not the national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of State-licensed bookmakers who however exercise the same activity, liable to the single tax […]? (3) Do Articles 52 and 56 et seq. [TFEU], the case-law of the [Court] on gambling and betting services, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, having regard also to the judgment of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) of 23 January 2018, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation at issue, with Article 1, paragraph 644, (g) of the Law No 190/2014, which requires national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of bookmakers established in a different EU Member State, in particular those sharing the characteristics of [Stanleybet Malta] and, secondly, those bookmakers jointly and severally with their national intermediaries, to pay the single tax […] 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?’