The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled: the technical extension fee applied to bingo hall concessions is incompatible with EU law.
This was announced immediately after the judgment by tax lawyer Alessandro Dagnino, Managing Partner of LEXIA, who, acting as counsel for several sector operators, devised the litigation strategy and initiated the proceedings that led first to a referral to the Italian Constitutional Court and subsequently to two separate preliminary references submitted by the Italian Council of State to the Luxembourg Court. Just minutes ago, the CJEU issued its decision, marking a decisive turning point in the complex and lengthy litigation aimed at establishing the unlawfulness of the technical extension fee.
The Statement
“This is a landmark ruling for the sector, which overturns the national legislation that for over ten years allowed the Customs and Monopolies Agency to impose unfair conditions on bingo concession holders through technical extensions — conditions that today have been declared incompatible with EU law,” Dagnino stated. He continued: “The fee, in addition to constituting a burdensome condition not envisaged in the original concession agreement, has distorted competition in the sector for years, effectively operating as an improper capitation tax (so-called lump sum tax) imposed uniformly on operators, regardless of their economic capacity. The entire mechanism has been struck down, including provisions prohibiting the transfer of bingo halls during the extension period and excluding non-adhering operators from participating in future tender procedures. This paves the way for claims seeking restitution of amounts unduly paid, as well as potential actions for damages.”
The Case
According to the Court, the European directive on the award of service concessions precludes national legislation insofar as it imposes an obligation to pay a monthly fee not envisaged in the original award, particularly where such fee alters the fundamental economic parameters of the concessions concerned — for instance, by setting an identical amount for all operators in the sector, regardless of their financial capacity, and by significantly increasing the fee from the time it was first imposed.
The Advocate General of the CJEU, Leila Medina, had already concluded that the measure was incompatible with EU law and, in her Opinion, provided a range of legal grounds — all supporting the inapplicability of the national provisions.
Following the ruling, the case will now return to the Council of State, which is required to issue its decision in accordance with the European judgment, setting aside the national provisions to the extent of their incompatibility with EU law.
