(This post had been published in Italian also)
Few days ago it had been published the awaited judgement of the European Supreme Court regarding questions addressed by the Consiglio di Stato, pertaining to possible infringement of rules of equal treatment and of effectiveness of some aspects of the 2012’s “Monti” betting call for tenders.
There are now some questions. What is the meaning of that judgement? How it changes the whole judicial framework? How the judgement will influence next evolution of the Italian betting sector?
The answer to the first question is only apparently easy. The judgement seems quite simple, in comparison with the previous ones. The Supreme Court states that the UE Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding the organisation of a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded previously, aiming to the reorganisation of the system, in pursuing legitimate objectives. The period of validity of concessions equal to three years is not, in itself, reason for censure.
Oddly the Supreme Court gives its decision expressly only on the second question out of two that had been asked by the Consiglio di Stato, assuming in fact as absorbable in it the first question, which asks if the period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past can be act to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures.
In the communication published immediately after the Court’s judgement, Stanley appeals to that “gap”. Besides it highlights there is a further request still pending for preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, asked by the Corte di Cassazione in the order of April 3rd 2014, which returns the same questions submitted by the Consiglio di Stato, including that regarding the “remedy capacity” requirement, and it asks in addition if “the unprecedented obligation, provided by the Monti call for tenders, to transfer the ownerships of goods forming the network to exercise betting activities, results in an unjustified competitive disadvantage for “new entries”, in comparison with existing concessionaires”. Stanley, as may be seen from first communication, seems determined to resist on the basis of above arguments.
Regarding in general any bookmaker without concession that started its betting offer after the “Bersani” call for tenders, and that consequently cannot claim it had been discriminated by any call for tenders before 2012, the denial of the discriminatory character of the Monti call for tenders can lead to different considerations. In thus context there are signs the propensity to adhere to regulatisation provided by the Stability Law is increasing.
It is in fact undervalued the interest of bookmakers to regularize. It should be noted regularisation is a necessary condition the operator enterprise takes actual market value. The difficulty in reaching a solution of the anomaly of the Italian betting sector could be also due to both ineffective communication and understanding of bookmakers needs and pursued objectives.
With reference to regularisation, among various reasons that slow-down bookmakers decision, it should not be undervalued the issue, raised by some operators, regarding the risk the Police deny the license article 88 of TULPS because of infringement of article 4, paragraph 4-bis, of Law 401/1989, just with reference to unauthorised betting organisation and offer, taking into account Stability Law provides a fiscal and administrative regularisation, not a criminal amnesty. It seems necessary a timely and comprehensive clarification by the ADM and the Government on this subject.
