- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-322/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0322
62016CN0322
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
19.9.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 343/24
(Case C-322/16)
(2016/C 343/37)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Global Starnet Ltd
Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
Questions referred
1.May Article 267(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance is not unconditionally obliged to refer a question on the interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling if, in the course of the proceedings in question, the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) assessed the constitutional lawfulness of the national rules, in essence on the basis of the regulatory parameters which the Court of Justice is being asked to interpret, even though they are formally different in that they derive from provisions of the Constitution rather than from provisions of the European Treaties?
2.In the alternative, in the event that the Court answers the question on the interpretation of Article 267(3) TFEU to the effect that reference for a preliminary ruling is compulsory: do the provisions and principles set out in Article 26 TFEU (The internal market), Article 49 TFEU (Right of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (Freedom to provide services), Article 63 TFEU (Free movement of capital) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Freedom to conduct a business) and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (which ‘is among the fundamental principles of the European Union’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 14 March 2013 in Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle, C-545/11) preclude the adoption and application of national regulations (Article 1(78)(b), subsections 4, 8, 9, 17, 23 and 25, of Law No 220/2010) which lay down new requirements and obligations for concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, including existing concession holders, by means of an addendum to the existing agreement (and without any period for gradual compliance)?