Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015CN0692

Case C-692/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Security Service Srl v Ministero dell’Interno and Others

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.3.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Security Service Srl v Ministero dell’Interno and Others

(Case C-692/15)

(2016/C 106/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Security Service Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma

Questions referred

1.

[Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-465/2005 Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:781), in which that court] found that the Italian State was in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services), stating that:

(a)

it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard;

(b)

private security guard activities may be pursued by service providers established in another Member State only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto (provincial governor) without taking account of the obligations to which such providers are already subject in their Member State of origin;

(c)

that authorisation is to be of limited territorial validity and is to be granted subject to consideration of the number and size of private security undertakings already operating in the area in question;

(d)

private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate;

(e)

the staff of private security undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work without taking account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin;

(g)

private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation;

(h)

such undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti;

(i)

the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation;

[to be interpreted as] precluding, of itself, the provincial public security authority (the Questore) from imposing requirements regarding the provisions of services such as those at issue in this case, [which] make it compulsory to deploy a minimum number of security guards (two) for operations entailing the provisions of particular services?

2.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is a new question, may the question referred to above may be said to be sufficiently analogous to the questions raised in Case C-462/2005 as to lead to the same outcome, on the basis of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty?
Top