Italian Council of State rejects foreign operators’ appeal on online gaming tax regime
Italy’s Council of State has drawn a new line in the long-running dispute between the national authorities and foreign operators in the online gaming and betting sector. In a ruling filed after the hearing of 25 September 2025, the judges at Palazzo Spada declared inadmissible the application for revocation lodged by two foreign companies against the Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM), the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
The appeal sought to overturn the ruling no. 1498 of 2024, in which the Seventh Section had excluded the applicants’ standing to challenge the tax compliance measures introduced by ADM in 2015. Those measures formed part of a broader initiative aimed at aligning tax and regulatory obligations and bringing under state control all operators lacking a national concession.
The operator’s arguments
The two foreign companies argued that they could not be classified either as licensed concessionaires or as entirely irregular operators. In their view, European case law – particularly the landmark Gambelli, Placanica, Costa and Cifone, and Laezza rulings – had recognised a form of autonomous legitimacy for conducting gaming activities in Italy, without the need to adhere to the extraordinary fiscal procedure introduced in 2015.
The companies claimed that exclusion from the compliance programme had consolidated a unique legal status, one that distinguished them from other operators. This line of reasoning, however, had already failed to convince the administrative judges in the original ruling.
The Council of State’s stance
The Council of State reiterated that no “peculiar position” could elevate non-licensees to the level of recognised concession holders. Any discrimination suffered in the past, the judges explained, could not be transformed into a permanent privilege, nor justify exceptions to the fiscal and regulatory obligations imposed by the State.
In its latest ruling, the Council further stressed that the claims advanced by the companies did not fall within the limited grounds for revocation permitted under Italian law. To qualify as a revocatory error, the judges underlined, one must prove a factual oversight or a perceptual misreading of the record, not an alleged mistake of law. Challenging the interpretation of legislation or the evaluation of judicial precedents does not amount to a valid basis for reopening a settled judgment.
European precedents and system compatibility
The decision also recalled the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which in 2022 had already deemed the Italian system of revocation proceedings compatible with EU law. The Luxembourg judges clarified that European law does not oblige Member States to introduce specific remedies for contesting potential violations by the supreme courts.
By referring to this precedent, the Council of State excluded the possibility of using revocation as a vehicle to re-litigate substantive issues already adjudicated.
A ruling of principle
Beyond declaring the appeal inadmissible, the Council of State ordered full cost compensation between the parties. This choice reflects, on the one hand, the complexity of the dispute, and on the other, the intent to reaffirm the boundaries between extraordinary remedies and ordinary appeals in administrative litigation.
The ruling sends a clear message: revocation is not a procedural “second chance” but a residual tool reserved for correcting material or perceptual errors. This principle carries particular significance in the public gaming sector, where the tension between national regulation, fiscal obligations, and European jurisprudence is often most evident.
Implications for the online gaming market
The decision falls within a broader context in which taxation and the legitimacy of foreign operators remain pressing issues. Over recent years, regulatory reforms have sought to bring all betting and casino platforms under the state concession system, with the dual aim of ensuring transparency and safeguarding tax revenue.
By rejecting the appeal, the Council has reaffirmed Italy’s strict approach towards operators attempting to position themselves in a grey area between legality and outright irregularity. For market participants, the message is unequivocal: only adherence to the national concession and tax framework guarantees a stable and legitimate foothold in the Italian market.
With this ruling, the Council of State has reinforced a fundamental principle: revocation cannot serve as a tool to revisit substantive matters already examined, even when arguments touch upon European law. The decision closes, at least for now, another chapter in the long legal battle waged by foreign operators, strengthening Italy’s regulatory framework for the public gaming sector.
This article was first published in Italian on 9 October 2025.
All roads lead to Rome, 03–06 November 2025. SiGMA Central Europe takes centre stage at the Fiera Roma, uniting 30,000 delegates, 1,200 exhibitors, and 550 speakers. This is where legacies are built, and the future takes shape. Connect with the innovators’ driving change
