Five years since the seminal Placanica ruling, the Court was eventually given the opportunity to ascertain whether the exclusionary effects of the then applicable Italian gambling legislation were indeed remedied in accordance with its relevant judicial pronouncements. In Costa and Cifone, it was called upon to examine in this respect two particular aspects of the reformed Italian gambling licensing regime. First, the requirement that all new concessionaries are obliged to observe a minimum distance from the gaming outlets of already established licensees. Second, the obligation imposed on the competent national authorities to revoke the gambling licence of operators engaging in cross border gaming activities outside the scope of the national concession. The ruling clarifies that the imposition of geographical constraints exclusively on new tenderers contravenes the Placanica case law. It omits to explain though what actually distinguishes the Costa and Cifone scenario from the earlier Blanco Pérez ruling, where the imposition of a similar legislative requirement was in principle accepted in relation to the provision of medicinal services. The ruling also relies on the ambiguity of the Italian gambling law and avoids tackling directly the second preliminary question asked by the referring national court. By doing so, it misses the opportunity to explain whether the obligation to comply with the totality of the conditions governing an awarded gaming licence constitutes the necessary corollary of the exclusion of the mutual recognition principle in the entire gambling area.
European Business Law Review