Case C‑375/14

Criminal proceedings

against

Rosanna Laezza

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law — Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders — Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 28 January 2016

Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Betting and gaming — National law requiring the licensee to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets — Not permissible — Justification — Combatting crime — Proportionality — Verification by the national court

(Arts 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU)

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision which requires a licensee to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

Such a national provision may render the exercise of that activity less attractive. The risk that an undertaking may have to transfer, without financial consideration, the rights to use the assets in its possession may prevent it from obtaining a return on its investment. In that connection, although that provision may be justified as it pursues an objective of combating criminality linked to betting and gaming, which is an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on fundamental freedoms, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the restriction concerned satisfies the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 23, 32, 34, 37, 44, operative part)