Global Starnet (new conditions for existing online concessionaires): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Case C-322/16 is a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) in Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato. Global Starnet, formerly B Plus Giocolegale Ltd, is an online gaming concessionaire in Italy.

The Consiglio di Stato referred questions on 4 February 2016, and the Court received the reference on 7 June 2016. Article 1(78)(b) of Law 220/2010 imposed new requirements on existing concessionaires by addendum.

Global Starnet argued this breached Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and legitimate expectations. It also asked whether a last-instance court must still refer EU-law questions after the national constitutional court has upheld the same rules.

The case sits among the licensing and administrative court cases on this site.

Who is covered

The ruling concerns gaming concessionaires in Italy that held concessions before the 2011 Stability Law conditions were added. It also speaks to every last-instance court in the EU that faces EU-law questions after a constitutional ruling.

The defendants were the Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and the Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato, now ADM. Advocate General N. Wahl delivered the opinion. For other EU rulings, see gambling lawsuits in the European Union.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a reference on the interpretation of EU law in a dispute between an operator and Italian authorities, and the record shows no fund, no damages and no claim process for players.

The case therefore has no claim deadline and no administrator.

What the court decided

The Court of Justice decided the case on 20 December 2017. As of 14 November 2026 the judgment stands as the final word on the reference.

The Court held two things. First, a court of last instance must in principle still refer EU-law questions even when the Corte costituzionale has already ruled on similar parameters.

Second, Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the principle of legitimate expectations do not preclude imposing new conditions on existing gaming concessionaires by addendum, provided the conditions are justified, suitable and proportionate.

The national judge applies those tests to the facts. The record for this page does not describe how the Consiglio di Stato then ruled. The ministry's other cases are collected under Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze lawsuits.

Why it matters

The judgment is a precedent on two points: how far a state may rewrite the terms of an existing gaming concession, and when a national supreme court must ask Luxembourg for guidance.

The first point lets governments adjust concessions if the changes pass a proportionality test. The second protects the reference route even after constitutional review.

For more cases where operators against regulators and states end up in court, see the category hub.

Questions people ask

What did the CJEU decide in Global Starnet?

On 20 December 2017 the First Chamber held that a last-instance court must in principle still refer EU-law questions after a constitutional ruling, and that new conditions on existing concessionaires are allowed if justified, suitable and proportionate.

Did the Italian constitutional court rule on the same law first?

Yes. The Corte costituzionale upheld the same conditions in judgment 56/2015, and the Consiglio di Stato then referred the EU-law side to Luxembourg as case C-322/16.

Can players claim money from this case?

No. No payout exists, because the case concerns the terms of operators' concessions and contains no player claim.

Related cases

• Corte costituzionale 56/2015: the Italian constitutional ruling on the same 2011 conditions that preceded this reference.
• Ten gaming-machine network concessionaires: a separate Italian case before the Corte dei conti in which Bplus/Global Starnet is among the named concessionaires.