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
(Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets - Conditions of authorisation - Requirement of police authorisation and a licence - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between bet collection points - Cross-border activities analogous to those covered by the licence - Prohibition - Mutual recognition of betting and gaming licences)
2013/C 325/07
Language of the case: Italian
(Case C-660/11)
Applicants: Daniele Biasci, Alessandro Pasquini, Andrea Milianti, Gabriele Maggini, Elena Secenti, Gabriele Livi
Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno
Other party to the proceedings: SNAI — Sindacato Nazionale Agenzie Ippiche SpA
(Case C-8/12)
Applicants: Cristian Rainone, Orentino Viviani, Miriam Befani
Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Prato, Questura di Firenze
Other parties to the proceedings: SNAI — Sindacato Nazionale Agenzie Ippiche SpA, Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana — Freedom of movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit issued by the national authorities — Non-recognition of authorisations and permits issued by foreign authorities — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU)
It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(3) of the model contract, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.
National legislation which in fact precludes all cross-border activity in the betting and gaming sector, irrespective of the form in which that activity is undertaken and, in particular, in cases where there is the possibility of direct contact between consumer and operator and where physical checks for police purposes can be made of an undertaking’s intermediaries who are present on national territory, is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case as regards Article 23(3) of the model contract.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 73, 10.03.2012.