Biasci (police authorisation for CTDs): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12 (GL-EU-0302) were decided by the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Biasci and Others v Ministero dell'Interno and Questura di Livorno, and Rainone and Others v Ministero dell'Interno and Others.

The judgment of 12 September 2013 is one of the EU-level licensing and administrative court cases on betting.

The Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana referred the questions by decisions of 5 December 2011, and the Court received the references on 27 December 2011 and 2 January 2012.

The claimants were CTD operators who had been refused police authorisations. The record cites Arts 43 and 49 EC, the police authorisation in art. 88 TULPS, and the minimum distances and withdrawal clauses of the 2006 Bersani tender.

Who is covered

The claimants are Daniele Biasci and other CTD operators linked to Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH (Austria), and Cristian Rainone and others. The defendants are the Ministero dell'Interno and the Questure of Livorno, Prato and Firenze. Their role is summarized under Ministero dell'Interno lawsuits.

The ruling affects operators and intermediaries who hold a licence in one EU Member State and want to serve customers in Italy. The wider picture is under gambling lawsuits in the European Union.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a preliminary ruling on how EU law applies to Italian licensing, and the record shows no fund, fine, damages or settlement.

Filing a settlement claim is free in cases that have one, but none exists here. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What the Court decided

On 12 September 2013 the Court accepted that Italy may require a police authorisation in addition to a state licence, and may restrict it to licence holders. It repeated its Costa and Cifone case law on minimum distances and on clear withdrawal clauses (art. 23(3) of the model contract).

The Court added that a national rule which in fact precludes all cross-border activity is contrary to Arts 43 and 49 EC. It also held that a licence held in another Member State does not oblige Italy to admit the operator without its own licence, so there is no mutual recognition of licences.

The case is decided. As of 14 November 2026 the record shows no later step in these joined cases.

Why it matters

Biasci is a precedent on Italian licensing: a second authorisation layer limited to licence holders is allowed, and a foreign licence gives no automatic right to operate in Italy.

Readers following the Court's wider gambling line can use the licensing and administrative court cases category.

Questions people ask

Can Italy require a police authorisation as well as a state licence?

Yes. The Court of Justice held on 12 September 2013 that Italy may require a police authorisation in addition to a state licence and restrict it to licence holders.

Does a Maltese or Austrian licence have to be recognised in Italy?

No. The Court held that a licence held in another Member State does not oblige Italy to admit the operator without its own licence.

What did the Court say about minimum distances?

It repeated Costa and Cifone on minimum distances and on clear withdrawal clauses. A rule that in fact precludes all cross-border activity is contrary to Arts 43 and 49 EC.

Related cases

• Costa and Cifone (C-72/10 and C-77/10): criminal proceedings on the Italian betting licensing regime.
• Placanica (C-338/04, C-359/04, C-360/04): earlier EU judgment on Italian betting licences.