CELEX: 62011CN0660
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-660/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Daniele Biasci and Others v Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno

10.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 73/18
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Daniele Biasci and Others v Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno
   (Case C-660/11)
   2012/C 73/32
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Daniele Biasci, Alessandro Pasquini, Andrea Milianti, Gabriele Maggini, Elena Secenti, Gabriele Livi
   
      Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as in principle precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Article 88 of the Testo unico delle leggi di pubblica sicurezza (Consolidated Law on public security; ‘the TULPS’), under which ‘a permit to organise betting may be granted exclusively to persons holding a licence or authorisation issued by a Ministry or another body to which the law reserves the right to organise and manage betting, and also to persons to whom that responsibility has been entrusted by the licence-holder or by the holder of an authorisation, by virtue of such licence or authorisation’, and Article 2(2b) of Decree-Law No 40 of 25 March 2010, converted by Law No 73/2010, under which ‘Article 88 of the (TULPS), which references to Royal Decree No 773 of 18 June 1931, as subsequently amended, is to be interpreted as meaning that the permit provided for therein, where it is granted for commercial businesses involving gaming and the collection of bets for cash prizes, shall be deemed to be effective only after the operators of those businesses have been granted the appropriate license to carry on such gaming and collect such bets by the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies of the Ministry of Economic and Financial Affairs’?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as in principle also precluding national legislation, such as Article 38(2) of Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted by Law No 248/2006…? (1)
               
               The question concerning the compatibility of Article 38(2) with the abovementioned principles of Community law relates solely to the parts of that provision in which: (a) there is a general tendency to protect licences issued before the legal framework was amended; (b) obligations are introduced to open new sales points at a distance from those already authorised which could ultimately ensure de facto the maintenance of pre-existing commercial positions. The question further relates to the general interpretation placed on Article 38(2) by the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies by inserting in licensing agreements (Article 23(3)) a clause relating to lapse of the licence where analogous cross-border activities are engaged in directly or indirectly.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer is in the affirmative, that is to say that it considers compatible with Community law the national rules cited in the preceding paragraphs, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given in advance to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest by the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which the service provider is subject in the State in which he is established?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answer is in the affirmative, as set out in the preceding paragraph, must the referring court take account, in the context of its examination of the proportionality of a similar restriction, of the fact that the relevant provisions of the State in which the service provider is established provide for a degree of control which is equal to or actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?
            
         
      (1)  That part of question 2 where the full text of Article 38(2) — published in GURI No 153 of 4 July 2006 — was reproduced has been omitted.