Council of State upholds ADM’s revised bingo concession fees in Italy

Italy's Council of State has rejected a bingo concessionaire's challenge to the fee calculation model introduced by the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM) for concessions operating under technical extensions, according to a ruling reported on 14 October 2026. The court held that the mechanism does not conflict with earlier decisions of the administrative courts and confirmed that it is compatible with the principles set out in its 2025 judgment.

The dispute concerns bingo concessions that expired and were extended over the years, with a monthly fee initially set at the same amount for all operators regardless of turnover. Both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Council of State intervened, requiring the administration to recalculate the amounts according to the wagers collected by each concession. ADM's determination of 31 July 2026 introduced a model based on 81 bands, applicable to the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2026.

The concessionaire argued that the measure still provided substantially flat amounts, replacing a single fee for all with equal sums for operators in the same band. The judges did not accept that account, finding that the agency's determination "rispetta questi limiti" and provides for "una progressione graduale degli importi legata all'aumento del fatturato". The system also includes a minimum threshold, justified by the onerous nature of continuing the concession relationship, and a maximum threshold, intended to avoid disproportionate effects for halls with larger volumes of wagers and possible distortions of competition.

The Council of State said the choice of quantification mechanism, including any minimum or maximum thresholds and the criteria for graduation, rests with the administration, provided the payment remains linked to the turnover of the individual concession and is not set in a flat manner. It added that objections of this kind concern the lawfulness of the measure and must be raised in the ordinary challenge proceedings, not in compliance proceedings, which do not allow the court to substitute itself for the administration in remaining discretionary assessments.

The court also noted that ADM is reconstructing, for each concession, the events of the nine years of extension, the payments made and the annual turnover, in order to apply the banded system. It rejected the further complaint about the failure to launch new tenders, holding that the earlier judgment had not set a precise deadline for starting the procedures, which first require the definition of the concession model, the territorial distribution of halls, the duration and the economic terms of the relationships. Those choices cannot be attributed to ADM as a failure to comply with the judgment, the court found.