- 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
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012.#Criminal proceedings against Matteo Minesi.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania — 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 authorisation and a public security permit — Protection afforded to persons obtaining authorisations and permits by means of award procedures that unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.#Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licence required — Action to be taken following an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16 300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibited by national legislation — Whether permissible.#Case C‑279/10.
ECLI:EU:C:2012:84
62010CO0279
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
(Case C‑279/10)
Re:
Operative part
1.Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences for undertaking an economic activity and seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the pre-existing operators, by providing, inter alia, for minimum distances between the establishments of new licence holders and those of pre-existing operators.
2.Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation from being imposed on persons linked to an operator that was excluded from an earlier tendering procedure in breach of Union law, even after the new call for tenders intended to remedy that breach of Union law, in so far as that call for tenders and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the unlawful exclusion of that operator from the earlier call for tenders.
3.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 call for tenders such as that at issue in the main proceedings and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted at the end of that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse-races, must be drawn up clearly, precisely and unambiguously, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.