Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62008CN0203

Case C-203/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name Betfair ; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing

OJ C 197, 2.8.2008, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

2.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing

(Case C-203/08)

(2008/C 197/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’

Other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing

Questions referred

1.

Should Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that, where a closed licensing system is applied in a Member State to the provision of services relating to games of chance, the application of that article precludes the competent authority of that Member State from prohibiting a service provider to whom a licence has already been granted in another Member State to provide those services via the internet from also offering those services via the internet in the first Member State?

2.

Is the interpretation which the Court of Justice has given to Article 49 EC, and in particular to the principle of equality and the duty of transparency arising therefrom, in a number of individual cases concerning concessions applicable to the procedure for the granting of a licence to offer services relating to games of chance under a statutorily established single-licence system?

3.

(a).

Under a statutorily established single-licence system, can the extension of the licence of the existing licence-holder, without potential applicants being given an opportunity to compete for that licence, be a suitable and proportionate means of meeting the imperative requirements in the general interest which the Court of Justice has recognised as justifying restriction of the freedom to provide services in respect of games of chance? If so, under what conditions?

(b).

Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 3(a) whether Question 2 is answered in the affirmative or the negative?
Top