(Jamma) The public hearing in the Fourth Section of the Council of State in which the StanleyBet appeal against the ban on the 2 thousand horse, sports and virtual betting agencies was recently concluded - after about an hour of debate . For the lawyer Ferraro di Stanley, the latest tender "has not remedied the previous discrimination and has not implemented the Community jurisprudence" Ferraro therefore asked for a new referral to the Court of Justice, if the Board does not deem the bookmaker entitled to challenge the tender. In fact, he cited the judgment of the ECJ Costa Cifone (paragraph 90) on the basis of which Stanley's modus operandi cannot be censured, who preferred not to present any offer, not having legal certainties on the situation that would have arisen. For the lawyer Agnello “the tender provides for self-excluding rules. Stanley could not have participated from the outset, and this was affirmed by the Cassation, the Court of Justice, and most recently the Council of Administrative Justice for the Sicilian Region. The previous tenders had the sole objective of preserving economic interests, as demonstrated by the massive intervention of the concessionaires in this venue". In fact, they intervened in court to support the positions of the Administrations Lottomatica, Sisal, Snai, Cogetech, Intralot and Galassia Game. Then Agnello reiterated that the Italian regulatory framework does not provide for a symmetry between the position of Stanley and that of the historic dealers who, given the extensions from which the latter have benefited. And then: “We wanted to remedy a series of discriminations that began in 1999, with a tender that offers 2 concessions for a duration of 40 months. With just three years of management, Stanley would have had to amortize the investments made and 12 years of legal battles". Furthermore, Stanley could not have participated, Agnello maintained again, both because "he controlled a network of 2.500 CTDs in October 2012", more than those put out for tender, "both because of the clauses for forfeiture of the concession due to proceedings sentences in progress, these clauses already censored by the Court of Justice". The only solution "is to reset the network, to remove all the discriminations made up to now". buzzard (Lottomatic), "Stanley has not contested immediately excluding clauses" The various sentences of the various regional Tars, and the Cassation itself have recalled how Stanley enjoys a commercial advantage. A demonstration of this is the extreme effort in census the Stanley points that can arise at any time and anywhere. Moreover, the bookmaker enjoys a series of other advantages compared to the discipline to which state concessionaires are subject". Elefante (Avv. Stato) “In the Biasci case (pending before the ECJ, ed), the European Commission has supported positions contrary to those advanced by the CTDs”. And on the exclusion clauses: "They are not immediately harmful". And therefore "The situation in which Stanley found itself is attributable exclusively to its strategic choices" he argued, referring to the choices adopted in the previous tenders taking into consideration the specificity of the Italian panorama, and to the process followed over the years to adapt the Italian regulatory system to Community principles. The appeal has been sent to a decision, the sentence is now awaited and will be issued within 2 months
