Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2007/069/20

Case C-42/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

OJ C 69, 24.3.2007, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

(Case C-42/07)

(2007/C 69/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd

Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Questions referred

1.

Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?

2.

Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including … the internet’?
Top