Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/19

(Case C-348/22, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Assessment of validity - Legal basis - Articles 47, 55 and 94 EC - Interpretation - Article 12(1) and (2) of that directive - Direct effect - Unconditional and sufficiently precise nature of the obligation for Member States to apply an impartial and transparent selection procedure to potential candidates and of the prohibition on automatic renewal of an authorisation granted for a given activity - National legislation providing for the automatic extension of concessions for the occupation of State-owned maritime property)

(2023/C 205/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Comune di Ginosa

other parties: L’Angolino Soc. coop., Lido Orsa Minore di AB, La Capannina Srl, Sud Platinum Srl, Lido Zanzibar Srl, Poseidone Srl, Lg Srls, Lido Franco di GH & C. Snc, Lido Centrale Piccola Soc. coop. arl, Bagno Cesena Srls, E.T. Edilizia e Turismo Srl, Bluserena SpA, Associazione Pro Loco ‘Luigi Strada’, M2g Raw Materials SpA, JF, D.M.D. Snc di CD & C. Snc, Ro.Mat., di MN & Co Snc, Perla dello Jonio Srl, Ditta Individuale EF, Associazione Dopolavoro Ferroviario Sez. Marina di Ginosa, Al Capricio Bis di RS, LB, Sib Sindacato Italiano Balneari, Federazione Imprese Demaniali

Operative part of the judgment

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply only to concessions for the occupation of State-owned maritime property which are of certain cross-border interest.

must be interpreted as not precluding an assessment of the scarcity of natural resources and available concessions from being made by combining an abstract and general approach at national level with a case-by-case approach based on an analysis of the coastal territory of the municipality concerned.

must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for Member States to apply an impartial and transparent selection procedure to potential candidates and the prohibition on automatic renewal of an authorisation granted for a given activity are laid down unconditionally and sufficiently precisely to be regarded as having direct effect.

must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the direct effect of the obligation and of the prohibition provided for in Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123 and the obligation to disapply conflicting national provisions lie with the national courts and the administrative authorities, including municipal authorities.

Language of the case: Italian

(1) OJ C 318, 22.8.2022.