Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 July 2026.#Balneari Rimini v Comune di Rimini.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94(a) and (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court – Manifest inadmissibility in part – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 12(1) and (2) – Directive 2014/23/EU – Scope – Concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes – Action for damages – Legislation providing for the automatic extension of those concessions – Scarcity of natural resources – Authority competent to assess such scarcity.#Case C-574/25.

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

10 July 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94(a) and (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer from the Court – Manifest inadmissibility in part – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 12(1) and (2) – Directive 2014/23/EU – Scope – Concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes – Action for damages – Legislation providing for the automatic extension of those concessions – Scarcity of natural resources – Authority competent to assess such scarcity )

In Case C‑574/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Giudice di pace di Rimini (Magistrate, Rimini, Italy), made by decision of 28 July 2025, received at the Court on 2 September 2025, in the proceedings

Balneari Rimini

v

Comune di Rimini,

intervening party:

I.R.,

THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of F. Schalin (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Rantos,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Order

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of recitals 9 and 57, Article 1(5), Article 2(2)(a) and (i) and Articles 12 and 44 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36), recitals 4 and 15 and Article 43 of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1), Article 4 TEU, Articles 49, 51, 195, 258 and 345 TFEU and the principle of sincere cooperation.

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Balneari Rimini, an undertaking holding a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property used for tourism and recreational purposes, and the Comune di Rimini (Municipality of Rimini, Italy) concerning the damage allegedly caused to that undertaking by that municipality’s decision to terminate the automatic renewal of such concessions.

 Legal framework

 European Union law

 The Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

3        Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides:

‘In addition to the text of the questions referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling, the request for a preliminary ruling shall contain:

(a)      a summary of the subject matter of the dispute and the relevant findings of fact as determined by the referring court or tribunal, or, at least, an account of the facts on which the questions are based;

(b)      the tenor of any national provisions applicable in the case and, where appropriate, the relevant national case-law;

(c)      a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or tribunal to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of European Union law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings.’

 Directive 2006/123

4        Article 12 of Directive 2006/123, entitled ‘Selection from among several candidates’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:

‘1.      Where the number of authorisations available for a given activity is limited because of the scarcity of available natural resources or technical capacity, Member States shall apply a selection procedure to potential candidates which provides full guarantees of impartiality and transparency, including, in particular, adequate publicity about the launch, conduct and completion of the procedure.

2.      In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, authorisation shall be granted for an appropriate limited period and may not be open to automatic renewal nor confer any other advantage on the provider whose authorisation has just expired or on any person having any particular links with that provider.’

5        Article 44 of that directive, entitled ‘Transposition’, provides, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 28 December 2009.’

 Directive 2014/23

6        Recitals 4 and 15 of Directive 2014/23 state:

‘(4)      The award of public works concessions is presently subject to the basic rules of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)]; while the award of services concessions with a cross-border interest is subject to the principles of the [FEU Treaty], and in particular the principles of free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, as well as to the principles deriving therefrom such as equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency. There is a risk of legal uncertainty related to divergent interpretations of the principles of the Treaty by national legislators and of wide disparities among the legislations of various Member States. Such risk has been confirmed by the extensive case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union which has, nevertheless, only partially addressed certain aspects of the award of concession contracts.

A uniform application of the principles of the [FEU Treaty] across all Member States and the elimination of discrepancies in the understanding of those principles is necessary at [European] Union level in order to eliminate persisting distortions of the internal market. …

…

(15)      In addition, certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources under private or public law, such as land or any public property, in particular in the maritime, inland ports or airports sector, whereby the State or contracting authority or contracting entity establishes only general conditions for their use without procuring specific works or services, should not qualify as concessions within the meaning of this Directive. …’

7        Article 43 of that directive, entitled ‘Modification of contracts during their term’, provides:

‘1.      Concessions may be modified without a new concession award procedure in accordance with this Directive in any of the following cases:

(a)      where the modifications, irrespective of their monetary value, have been provided for in the initial concession documents in clear, precise and unequivocal review clauses, which may include value revision clauses, or options. Such clauses shall state the scope and nature of possible modifications or options as well as the conditions under which they may be used. They shall not provide for modifications or options that would alter the overall nature of the concession;

…’

 Italian law

8        Article 37(2) of the Codice della Navigazione (Shipping Code, Italy), approved by regio decreto n. 327 (Royal Decree No 327) of 30 March 1942 (GURI No 93 of 18 April 1942), provided, in the event of the renewal of a concession, for the granting of a preferential right to the existing concessionaire, who enjoyed a right ‘of continuation’ or a right ‘of renewal’.

9        Article 01(2) of decreto-legge n. 400 – Disposizioni per la determinazione dei canoni relativi a concessioni demaniali marittime (Decree-Law No 400 laying down provisions relating to the determination of fees for concessions of State-owned coastal land) of 5 October 1993 (GURI No 234 of 5 October 1993, p. 23), converted into law, with amendments, by legge n. 494 (Law No 494) of 4 December 1993, as amended by Article 10(1) of legge n. 88 – Nuove disposizioni in materia di investimenti nelle imprese marittime (Law No 88 laying down new provisions on investments in maritime undertakings) of 16 March 2001 (GURI No 78 of 3 April 2001, p. 4), with effect from 18 April 2001, provided that a concession of State-owned maritime property was valid for six years. Upon expiry, it was automatically renewed for a further six years, and so on at each expiry date.

10      Following the opening of an infringement procedure against the Italian Republic by the European Commission, the preferential right provided for in Article 37(2) of the Shipping Code was removed by Article 1(18) of decreto-legge n. 194 – Proroga di termini previsti da disposizioni legislative (Decree-Law No 194 on the extension of time limits laid down by legislative provisions) of 30 December 2009 (GURI No 302 of 30 December 2009, p. 4). Moreover, the automatic renewal of the concession of State-owned maritime property, provided for in Article 01(2) of Decree-Law No 400, was removed by Article 11(1)(a) of legge n. 217 – Disposizioni per l’adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia alle Comunità europee – Legge comunitaria 2010 (Law No 217 laying down provisions to implement obligations resulting from Italy’s membership of the European Communities – Community Law 2010) of 15 December 2011 (GURI No 1 of 2 January 2012, p. 1).

11      Article 1(18) of Decree-Law No 194 had also extended the existing concessions of State-owned maritime property until 31 December 2012.

12      Subsequently, those concessions were once again extended. In particular, first of all, Article 24(3-septies) of decreto-legge n. 113 – Misure finanziarie urgenti per gli enti territoriali e il territorio (Decree-Law No 113 laying down urgent financial measures for local and regional authorities and the regions) of 24 June 2016 (GURI No 146 of 24 January 2016, p. 11), in the version in force on 1 March 2020, provided that, pending reorganisation in this field in accordance with the principles of EU law, existing concessions of State-owned property would remain valid.

13      Next, Article 1(682) and (683) of legge n. 145 – Bilancio di previsione dello Stato per l’anno finanziario 2019 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2019‑2021 (Law No 145 on the estimated State budget for the 2019 financial year and the multiannual budget for the three-year period from 2019 to 2021 inclusive) of 30 December 2018 (GURI No 302 of 31 December 2018, Ordinary Supplement No 62) provided for an extension of existing concessions of State-owned coastal land until 31 December 2033. That provision was repealed by Article 3(5) of legge n. 118 – Legge annuale per il mercato e la concorrenza 2021 (Law No 118 – Annual law on the market and competition 2021) of 5 August 2022 (GURI No 188 of 12 August 2022, p. 1).

14      In addition, decreto-legge n. 198 – Disposizioni urgenti in materia di termini legislativi (Decree-Law No 198 laying down urgent provisions on legislative time limits) of 29 December 2022 (GURI No 303 of 29 December 2022, p. 1) extended existing concessions of State-owned coastal land for an indefinite period. At the same time, legge n. 14 – Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 29 dicembre 2022, n. 198, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di termini legislativi. Proroga di termini per l’esercizio di deleghe legislative (Law No 14 converting into law Decree-Law No 198 laying down urgent provisions on legislative time limits and extending time limits for the exercise of delegations of legislative powers) of 24 February 2023 (GURI No 49 of 27 February 2023, p. 1) definitively prohibited municipalities from organising competitive tendering procedures, pending the government’s adoption of new rules on selective award procedures.

15      Finally, Article 1  of decreto-legge n. 131 – Disposizioni urgenti per l’attuazione di obblighi derivanti da atti dell’Unione europea e da procedure di infrazione e pre‑infrazione pendenti nei confronti dello Stato italiano (Decree-Law No 131 laying down urgent provisions for the implementation of obligations arising from acts of the European Union and from pending infringement and pre-infringement procedures against the Italian State) of 16 September 2024 (GURI No 217 of 16 September 2024, p. 1) provided for the extension of concessions of State-owned coastal land for tourism, recreational and sports purposes until 30 September 2027 and set the deadline for organising a competitive tendering procedure for the award of new concessions as 30 June 2027.

16      Directive 2006/123 was transposed into Italian law by decreto legislativo n. 59 – Attuazione della direttiva 2006/123/CE relativa ai servizi nel mercato interno (Legislative Decree No 59 implementing Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market) of 26 March 2010 (GURI No 94 of 23 April 2010, Ordinary Supplement No 75). Under Article 16(4) of that legislative decree, where the number of authorisations available is limited because of the scarcity of natural resources, such authorisations cannot be renewed automatically.

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

17      By a decision of 22 December 2023, the Municipality of Rimini decided to terminate the automatic renewal of concessions of State-owned coastal land in its territory for tourism and recreational purposes and to organise tendering procedures to award them to new concessionaires.

18      Balneari Rimini challenged the legality of that decision before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l’Emilia Romagna (Regional Administrative Court, Emilia-Romagna, Italy), seeking a ruling that it was entitled to continue to use the State-owned property. Those proceedings are still pending.

19      Moreover, on 3 April 2024, Balneari Rimini brought an action before the Giudice di pace di Rimini (Magistrate, Rimini, Italy) seeking an order requiring the Municipality of Rimini to pay it compensation of EUR 5 000 for non-material damage, consisting in damage to its reputation and to the continuity of its business, allegedly caused by the adoption of the decision to terminate its concession.

20      By order of 26 June 2024, the Giudice di pace di Rimini (Magistrate, Rimini) asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 49, 51, 195 and 345 TFEU and certain provisions of Directives 2006/123 and 2014/23.

21      By order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498), referring to its case-law arising in particular from the judgments of 14 July 2016, Promoimpresa and Others (C‑458/14 and C‑67/15, EU:C:2016:558); of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa) (C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301); and of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari (C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597), the Court held, in response to the first and second questions referred to it in that request for a preliminary ruling, that concessions of State-owned coastal land such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123.

22      In that order, however, the Court declared that request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible with respect to the third and fourth questions referred to it by the referring court, on the ground that it did not meet the requirements set out in Article 94(a) and (c) of the Rules of Procedure.

23      Following that order, the Giudice di pace di Rimini (Magistrate, Rimini), which is the referring court in the present case, considers that it is not in a position to rule on the dispute in the main proceedings. In particular, it considers that it cannot apply Directive 2006/123 since the applicant in the main proceedings holds a right of continuation (diritto di insistenza) which does not fall within the scope of the rules intended to preserve competition.

24      Moreover, that court considers that the dispute in the main proceedings differs from the situation at issue in the case giving rise to the judgment of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari (C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597), in that the concession held by Balneari Rimini was not renewed but simply extended.

25      That court also considers that there was no need for the Municipality of Rimini to organise a selection procedure providing full guarantees of impartiality and transparency within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123, since a note from the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Prime Minister’s Office, Italy) of 6 October 2023 (‘the note of 6 October 2023’) had established that coastal natural resources were not scarce, taking into account the national data and according to a general and abstract, proportionate and non-discriminatory approach.

26      Furthermore, that court considers that it is very difficult to rule on Balneari Rimini’s claim for compensation. In that regard, it would be fairer, in that court’s view, to propose an amicable settlement of the dispute in the main proceedings whereby, on the one hand, Balneari Rimini’s right to use the coastal land for an indefinite period would be recognised and, on the other hand, any compensation for damage by the Municipality of Rimini would be ruled out, within the limits of that court’s jurisdiction.

27      In those circumstances, the Giudice di pace di Rimini (Magistrate, Rimini) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must Article 195 and Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [read] in the light of Article 345 TFEU, recitals 9 and 57, Article 1(5) and Article 2(2)(a) and (i) of Directive [2006/123], be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, such as the one held by the applicant, which operates in the tourism sector and consistently and regularly provides non-economic services in the public interest and carries out activities in the public interest on State-owned land, such as the safeguarding of public property, the protection of public health and hygiene, the protection of the right of disabled people to have access to heliotherapy and bathing activities, as well as tourism, cultural and environmental activities, are excluded from the scope of harmonisation directives, such as Directive [2006/123], and/or from the scope of Article 49 TFEU?

(2)      Must concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, such as the one held by the applicant, the holder of which does not provide a service specified by the awarding entity, but exercises an economic activity on State-owned land on the basis of an agreement that gives it the right to exploit certain public domains or resources under private or public law, whereby the State establishes only general conditions for their use, where such concessions involve natural resources, be considered excluded from the scope of the authorisation referred to in Directive [2006/123] and/or the service concessions with a cross-border interest referred to in Directive [2014/23], in the light of recitals 4 and 15 of Directive [2014/23]?

(3)      Regardless of the answers to the previous questions, … are concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, such as the one held by the applicant, which commenced prior to 28 December 2009 and was repeatedly extended by law for an unlimited period, most recently in accordance with Article 24(3-septies) of Decree-Law No 113 of 24 June 2016, without a new concession and without any material change in the concession, outside the scope of Directive [2006/123] pursuant to Article 44 of the Services Directive and, directly or by analogy, Article 43 of Directive [2014/23]?

(4)      Regardless of the answers to the previous questions, … does Article 12 of Directive [2006/123] apply to concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, such as the one held by the applicant, at the time when the Italian Government, as owner of the coastal land, through the [Prime Minister’s Office] with the official report of 6 October 2023, noted that the coastal natural resource was not scarce, taking into account the national data, according to a general and abstract, proportionate and non-discriminatory approach, and are Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union and the principle of sincere cooperation infringed by the conduct of the [Commission] which, in its reasoned opinion of 16 November 2023 which closed infringement procedure No 2020/4118, opened by letter of formal notice of 3 December 2020, criticised national data on the lack of scarcity of the natural resource, threatening action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU before the [Court] and disseminating the full content of the reasoned opinion, or allowing its widest possible dissemination?’

 The questions referred for a preliminary ruling

 Admissibility

28      Under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where a reference for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible, the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, may at any time decide to give judgment by reasoned order without continuing the proceedings.

29      That provision must be applied in the present case in respect of the first question and the second part of the fourth question.

30      In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to the Court’s case-law, the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (judgment of 26 March 2020, Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny, C‑558/18 and C‑563/18, EU:C:2020:234, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).

31      Since the order for reference serves as the basis for those proceedings, the national court is required to explain, in the order for reference itself, the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and to provide the necessary explanations as to the reasons for the choice of the provisions of EU law whose interpretation it seeks and as to the link which it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 June 2020, C.F. (Tax inspection), C‑430/19, EU:C:2020:429, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

32      Moreover, there is no dispute that the information provided in orders for reference serves not only to enable the Court to provide useful answers but also to give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that it is the Court’s duty to ensure that that opportunity is safeguarded, given that, under that article, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 April 1982, Holdijk and Others, 141/81 to 143/81, EU:C:1982:122, and of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov, C‑614/14, EU:C:2016:514, paragraph 20).

33      The cumulative requirements, referred to in paragraph 31 of the present order, in regard to the content of a request for a preliminary ruling appear expressly in Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure, of which the referring court is supposed, in the context of the cooperation instituted by Article 267 TFEU, to be aware and which it is bound to observe scrupulously (order of 3 July 2014, Talasca, C‑19/14, EU:C:2014:2049, paragraph 21, and judgment of 9 September 2021, Toplofikatsia Sofia and Others, C‑208/20 and C‑256/20, EU:C:2021:719, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). They are also referred to in paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 of the recommendations of the Court of Justice of the European Union to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (OJ C, C/2024/6008).

 The admissibility of the first question

34      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 51, 195 and 345 TFEU and recitals 9 and 57 and Article 2(2)(a) and (i) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned maritime property used for tourism and recreational purposes are excluded from the scope both of Article 49 TFEU and of that directive, on the ground that the holders of those concessions consistently and regularly carry out activities connected with the exercise of official authority on the State-owned land concerned.

35      It should be noted that, by that question, the referring court repeats, in essence, the third and fourth questions set out in the request for a preliminary ruling made on 26 June 2024, which gave rise to the order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498), which the Court declared manifestly inadmissible in paragraph 51 of that order.

36      However, the present request for a preliminary ruling, like the one referred to in the preceding paragraph, contains no evidence to establish that Balneari Rimini carries out activities connected with the exercise of official authority on the State-owned land which is the subject matter of the concession at issue in the main proceedings. In particular, the references made by the referring court to the beach regulations adopted by the Municipality of Rimini and the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy), relied on to demonstrate Balneari Rimini’s participation in the exercise of official authority over the State-owned land in question, are of no relevance in that regard, since no details as to their content have been provided to the Court.

37      In those circumstances, it must be found that the present request for a preliminary ruling does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 94(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure as regards the first question.

 The admissibility of the second part of the fourth question

38      By the second part of its fourth question, the referring court essentially questions the compatibility with Article 4 TEU and the principle of sincere cooperation of the Commission’s conduct, consisting in threatening to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations and in disseminating, or allowing the widest possible dissemination of, the information contained in the reasoned opinion, which challenges the Italian Government’s assessment that the condition of scarcity of natural resources, for the purposes of Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123, was not fulfilled as regards Italian State-owned maritime property.

39      It should be noted, however, that the referring court does not, in the present request for a preliminary ruling, provide any information enabling the Court to assess the Commission’s conduct. Nor does that request make it possible to understand the reasons why the referring court considers that an answer to that question is necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.

40      In those circumstances, it must be found that the present request for a preliminary ruling does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 94(a) and (c) of the Rules of Procedure as regards the second part of the fourth question.

41      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court is unable to provide a useful answer to the first question and to the second part of the fourth question. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, those questions must be declared manifestly inadmissible.

 Substance

42      Pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, where the answer to a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, give its decision by reasoned order.

43      That provision should be applied in the present case in respect of the second and third questions, as well as the first part of the fourth question, since the answer to those questions may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law.

 The second question and the first part of the fourth question

44      By its second question and the first part of the fourth question, which may be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, the holder of which does not provide a service determined by the contracting entity, but carries out an economic activity on the State-owned public land on the basis of an agreement conferring on the holder the right to manage certain public assets or resources, under a private or public law regime, in the context of which the State lays down only the general conditions of use, come within the scope of Directive 2006/123, provided that those concessions concern natural resources.

45      By those questions, the referring court repeats, in very large part, the first question set out in the request for a preliminary ruling made on 26 June 2024, which gave rise to the order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498).

46      It is true that, according to settled case-law, the authority of a preliminary ruling does not preclude the national court or tribunal to which it is addressed from taking the view that it is necessary to make a further reference to the Court before giving judgment in the main proceedings. Such a procedure may be justified, in particular, when the national court or tribunal encounters difficulties in understanding or applying the judgment, when it refers a fresh question of law to the Court, or again when it submits new considerations which might lead the Court to give a different answer to a question submitted earlier (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 March 2003, Kaba, C‑466/00, EU:C:2003:127, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited, and of 9 March 2023, Pro Rauchfrei II, C‑356/22, EU:C:2023:174, paragraph 16).

47      In the present case, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, to reserve the application of the case-law arising from the judgments of 14 July 2016, Promoimpresa and Others (C‑458/14 and C‑67/15, EU:C:2016:558); of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa) (C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301); and of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari (C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597), to cases involving the renewal of a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property and to exclude its application in the event of the extension of such a concession.

48      In its order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498, paragraphs 30 to 32), the Court relied on its settled case-law in the specific field of concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes. It recalled that, in so far as such concessions are granted by a public authority and are intended for the use of State-owned land for tourism and recreational purposes, as in the case in the main proceedings, they may be classified as ‘authorisations’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/123. Such a classification stems from the fact that they concern natural resources, within the meaning of Article 12 of that directive, which, subject to the scarcity of those resources, may justify a limited number of authorisations.

49      However, the concession at issue in the main proceedings does not concern the provision of a service determined by the contracting authority, but an authorisation to exercise an economic activity on State-owned land. It follows that that concession does not fall within the category of service concessions. Such an interpretation is, moreover, supported by recital 15 of Directive 2014/23. That recital states that certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources under private or public law, such as land, whereby the State establishes only general conditions for their use without procuring specific works or services, should not qualify as ‘service concessions’ within the meaning of that directive.

50      It should be noted, however, that, in the present request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court appears to dispute the scarcity of state-owned land located on the Italian coastline. In that regard, it refers to the note of 6 October 2023, which ruled out such scarcity on the basis of an approach which the referring court describes as abstract and general, proportionate and non-discriminatory. That court also refers to statistical data from the Ministero della Salute (Ministry of Health, Italy) according to which, in 2017, out of 7 458 kilometres of Italian coastline, 4 970 kilometres were classified as suitable for bathing and, of those, only 2 000 kilometres were subject to concessions.

51      Under Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123, where the number of authorisations available for a given activity is limited because of the scarcity of available natural resources or technical capacity, Member States are to apply a selection procedure to potential candidates which provides full guarantees of impartiality and transparency, including, in particular, adequate publicity about the launch, conduct and completion of the procedure.

52      As the Court held in paragraphs 46 to 49 of its judgment of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa) (C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301), in the light of its wording, that provision confers on the Member States a degree of latitude as to the choice of criteria for assessing the scarcity of natural resources. That degree of latitude may lead them to give precedence to an abstract and general assessment that is valid for the entire national territory, but also, conversely, to favour a case-by-case approach that focuses on the situation existing in the coastal territory of a municipality or of the competent administrative authority, or even to combine those two approaches. In particular, the combination of an abstract and general approach at national level and a case-by-case approach based on an analysis of the coastal territory of the municipality concerned seems to be balanced and, therefore, capable at the same time of ensuring compliance with objectives regarding the economic exploitation of the coastline that may be defined at national level, while ensuring that the actual implementation of those objectives in the coastal territory of a municipality remains relevant. In any event, it is crucial that the criteria used by a Member State to assess the scarcity of available natural resources are based on objective, non-discriminatory, transparent and proportionate factors. Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123 therefore does not preclude an assessment of the scarcity of natural resources and available concessions from being made by combining an abstract and general approach at national level with a case-by-case approach based on an analysis of the coastal territory of the municipality concerned.

53      It follows that, in unconditional and sufficiently precise terms, Article 12(1) and (2) of that directive imposes on Member States an obligation to apply an impartial and transparent selection procedure to potential candidates and prohibits them both from automatically renewing and from automatically extending an authorisation granted for a given activity. Whether there is a limitation on the number of authorisations available for a given activity because of the scarcity of available natural resources must be determined by reference to a factual situation that is assessed by the competent authority, subject to review by a national court (judgment of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa), C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301, paragraphs 70 and 71).

54      It follows from the Court’s settled case-law that administrative authorities, including municipal authorities, are under the same obligation as a national court to apply the unconditional and sufficiently precise provisions of a directive and to refrain from applying provisions of national law which are inconsistent with them (judgment of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa), C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited).

55      In the present case, as pointed out in paragraph 50 of the present order, the Prime Minister’s Office considered, in the note of 6 October 2023 and following an assessment which the referring court described as abstract and general, but also as proportionate and non-discriminatory, that the natural resources located on Italian State-owned maritime property were not scarce.

56      In that regard, as noted in paragraph 53 of the present order, the assessment of the condition relating to the scarcity of natural resources falls to the competent national authority, subject to review by a national court.

57      This means, in the present case, first, that the referring court should verify that the Prime Minister’s Office constitutes, under Italian law, the authority competent to carry out that assessment, secondly, that that court should verify that that office has, as it claims, actually applied abstract and general, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria and, thirdly, that that court should ensure that the note of 6 October 2023 is binding under Italian law. Fourthly, and in any event, in so far as EU law permits the combination of an abstract and general approach at national level and a case-by-case approach based on an analysis of the coastal territory of the municipality concerned, as recalled in paragraph 52 of the present order, the referring court must examine whether Italian law permitted the Municipality of Rimini to depart, on the basis of local data, from the assessment contained in the note of 6 October 2023 and, consequently, to conclude that, in respect of all or part of its territory, the condition of scarcity of natural resources, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2006/123, was satisfied.

58      In that regard, it is important to point out that the fact that the concession at issue in the main proceedings is granted not at national level but at a municipal level must be taken into account in establishing whether the State-owned maritime property available for economic exploitation and located within the Municipality of Rimini at issue in the present case is scarce (see, by analogy, judgment of 14 July 2016, Promoimpresa and Others, C‑458/14 and C‑67/15, EU:C:2016:558, paragraph 43).

59      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question and to the first part of the fourth question is that Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2014/23 must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, the holder of which does not provide a service determined by the contracting entity, but carries out an economic activity on the State-owned public land on the basis of an agreement conferring on the holder the right to manage certain public assets or resources, under a private or public law regime, in the context of which the State lays down only the general conditions of use, come within the scope of Directive 2006/123, provided that those concessions concern natural resources, in so far as the number of authorisations available for tourism and recreational activities is limited on account of the scarcity of natural resources, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of that directive, which it is for the competent national authority to determine, subject to review by a national court.

 The third question

60      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 44 of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes which were granted before 28 December 2009, the date on which that directive entered into force, and which have been renewed or repeatedly extended by the national legislature for an indefinite period, without a new concession having been granted and without any material changes in the concession, fall outside the scope of that directive.

61      By this question, the referring court repeats, in essence, the second question set out in the request for a preliminary ruling made on 26 June 2024, which gave rise to the order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498).

62      That said, as pointed out in paragraph 47 of the present order, the referring court highlights, in the present request for a preliminary ruling, the fact that, in the present case, the concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property granted to Balneari Rimini was not renewed but extended, which is, in its view, a feature which distinguishes the present case from those which gave rise to the judgments of 14 July 2016, Promoimpresa and Others (C‑458/14 and C‑67/15, EU:C:2016:558); of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa) (C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301); and of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari (C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597). That court considers that the concession of State-owned land granted to Balneari Rimini was awarded to it prior to the date of entry into force of Directive 2006/123 for an indefinite period and that, consequently, no renewal took place in the present case.

63      In that regard, it should be noted that, in paragraph 40 of the order of 4 June 2025, Balneari Rimini (C‑464/24, EU:C:2025:498), the Court pointed out that the renewal of a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property takes the form of a succession of two titles of occupation of State-owned land rather than the continuation or extension of the first of those titles. That interpretation is such as to ensure that a concession can be awarded only following a competitive tendering procedure placing all the candidates and tenderers on an equal footing (judgment of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari, C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597, paragraph 58).

64      However, that statement, which first appeared in the judgment of 11 July 2024, Società Italiana Imprese Balneari (C‑598/22, EU:C:2024:597, paragraph 58), must be viewed in the context of the case which gave rise to that judgment. That statement, concerning the assessment of the compatibility of national legislation with EU law, in particular with Article 12 of Directive 2006/123, sought not to draw a distinction between the initial grant of a concession and its renewal but, on the contrary, was intended to make no distinction between the initial award of a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property and its renewal as regards that assessment.

65      Moreover, it is clear from the judgment of 20 April 2023, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Municipality of Ginosa) (C‑348/22, EU:C:2023:301), that the renewal and the initial grant of a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property – to the latter of which the referring court seeks to equate the extension of a concession – are subject to the same legal regime. In paragraph 69 of that judgment, the Court noted that Article 12(2) of that directive has direct effect in that it provides, inter alia, that an authorisation, such as a concession for the occupation of State-owned maritime property, is to be granted for an appropriate limited period and may not be open to automatic renewal. That provision prohibits, in unequivocal terms, the Member States from providing for automatic and general extensions of such concessions, without the Member States having any degree of latitude or possibility of attaching any conditions to that prohibition and without requiring the adoption of an act of the European Union or of the Member States. Furthermore, automatic renewal of such concessions is precluded by the very wording of Article 12(2) of Directive 2006/123.

66      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 44 of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes which were granted before 28 December 2009, the date on which that directive entered into force, and which have been renewed or repeatedly extended by the national legislature for an indefinite period, without a new concession having been granted and without any material changes in the concession, fall within the scope of that directive at the time of their renewal or extension, since the date on which those concessions were originally granted is irrelevant in that regard.

 Costs

67      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

1.      Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes, the holder of which does not provide a service determined by the contracting entity, but carries out an economic activity on the State-owned public land on the basis of an agreement conferring on the holder the right to manage certain public assets or resources, under a private or public law regime, in the context of which the State lays down only the general conditions of use, come within the scope of Directive 2006/123, provided that those concessions concern natural resources, in so far as the number of authorisations available for tourism and recreational activities is limited on account of the scarcity of natural resources, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of that directive, which it is for the competent national authority to determine, subject to review by a national court.

2.      Article 44 of Directive 2006/123

must be interpreted as meaning that concessions of State-owned coastal land used for tourism and recreational purposes which were granted before 28 December 2009, the date on which that directive entered into force, and which have been renewed or repeatedly extended by the national legislature for an indefinite period, without a new concession having been granted and without any material changes in the concession, fall within the scope of that directive at the time of their renewal or extension, since the date on which those concessions were originally granted is irrelevant in that regard.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Italian.