Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0211

    Case C-211/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Di Adamo

    OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.9.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 292/11


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Di Adamo

    (Case C-211/14)

    2014/C 292/14

    Language of the case: Italian

    Referring court

    Corte suprema di cassazione

    Party to the main proceedings

    Massimiliano Di Adamo

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

    2.

    Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

    3.

    Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


    Top