12.6.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 205/19
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Comune di Ginosa (Case C-348/22, (1) Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Assessment of validity — Legal basis — Articles 47, 55 and 94 EC — Interpretation — Article 12(1) and (2) of that directive — Direct effect — Unconditional and sufficiently precise nature of the obligation for Member States to apply an impartial and transparent selection procedure to potential candidates and of the prohibition on automatic renewal of an authorisation granted for a given activity — National legislation providing for the automatic extension of concessions for the occupation of State-owned maritime property) (2023/C 205/22) Language of the case: Italian Referring court Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato Defendant: Comune di Ginosa other parties: L’Angolino Soc. coop., Lido Orsa Minore di AB, La Capannina Srl, Sud Platinum Srl, Lido Zanzibar Srl, Poseidone Srl, Lg Srls, Lido Franco di GH & C. Snc, Lido Centrale Piccola Soc.
coop. arl, Bagno Cesena Srls, E.T. Edilizia e Turismo Srl, Bluserena SpA, Associazione Pro Loco ‘Luigi Strada’, M2g Raw Materials SpA, JF, D.M.D. Snc di CD & C. Snc, Ro.Mat., di MN & Co Snc, Perla dello Jonio Srl, Ditta Individuale EF, Associazione Dopolavoro Ferroviario Sez.
Marina di Ginosa, Al Capricio Bis di RS, LB, Sib Sindacato Italiano Balneari, Federazione Imprese Demaniali
Operative part of the judgment 1.
Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply only to concessions for the occupation of State-owned maritime property which are of certain cross-border interest. 2.
Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding an assessment of the scarcity of natural resources and available concessions from being made by combining an abstract and general approach at national level with a case-by-case approach based on an analysis of the coastal territory of the municipality concerned. 3.
Consideration of the first question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2006/123 in the light of Article 94 EC. 4.
Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for Member States to apply an impartial and transparent selection procedure to potential candidates and the prohibition on automatic renewal of an authorisation granted for a given activity are laid down unconditionally and sufficiently precisely to be regarded as having direct effect.