EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CN0275

Case C-275/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 2 April 2019 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

OJ C 206, 17.6.2019, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.6.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/34


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 2 April 2019 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

(Case C-275/19)

(2019/C 206/39)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

Respondents: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

Questions referred

1.

Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 442/89 of 2 December 1989, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 3 (using the wording shown) and Article 9 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable, and can individuals rely on that lack of enforceability?

2.

Given that the Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, should those provisions ‒ more specifically Article 2 and Article 3 mentioned below ‒ be unenforceable as against service providers in Portugal?


Top