EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-50/23, B.E. and Play Game: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2023 — B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0050

62023CN0050

January 31, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
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

11.4.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/23

(2023/C 127/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: B.E. Srl, Play Game Srl, Coral Srl

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

(1)Does the aforementioned national legislation infringe the European freedom of establishment and the freedom to conduct a business in so far as: (i) it entails an increase in the fee irrespective of the size of the business; (ii) it imposes the acceptance of the extension and of the aforementioned fee increase, exacerbated by the prohibition on transferring the premises, as an unreasonable condition for participating in subsequent tenders which are also indefinitely postponed?

(2)If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can that restriction be regarded as justified by the alleged existence of an overriding reason in the public interest, namely the need to align the timing of the launch of tender procedures?

(3)If, nevertheless, an overriding reason in the public interest is deemed to exist, have the following also been infringed: (i) the principle of proportionality, because the restrictive measure is not appropriate, suitable and proportionate, in the strictest sense, to the formally indicated public objective; (ii) the principle of competition for the market, because the choice to extend the concessions and postpone the launch of the calls for tenders prevents operators in the sector from exercising the freedom to conduct a business, at least in terms of the business planning and scheduling that is required?

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia