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 C2006/326/50

    Case C-409/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

    SL C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 25–25 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/25

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

    (Case C-409/06)

    (2006/C 326/50)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Verwaltungsgericht Köln

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

    Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules governing a State monopoly on sports betting, which contain impermissible restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, inasmuch as they do not serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner within the terms of the Court's case-law (judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR-13031), may still continue to apply for a transitional period on an exceptional basis, notwithstanding the primacy of directly applicable Community law?

    2.

    If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: what conditions need to be met for the purpose of derogating from that primacy and how is the transitional period to be determined?
    Top