# C_2013189EN.01000202.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Digibet Ltd., Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-156/13)

2013/C 189/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Digibet Ltd., Gert Albers

Appellant:

Respondent: Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it represent an inconsistent restriction on the gambling sector where:






  — | on the one hand, in a member state organised as a federal state, the organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the internet is, in principle, prohibited by the law in force in the overwhelming majority of the Länder (federal states) and — without an established right — can only be allowed, exceptionally, for lotteries and sporting bets in order to provide a suitable alternative to the illegal supply of games of chance as well as to combat the development and spread thereof, but |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does it represent an inconsistent restriction on the gambling sector where:

—

on the one hand, in a member state organised as a federal state, the organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the internet is, in principle, prohibited by the law in force in the overwhelming majority of the Länder (federal states) and — without an established right — can only be allowed, exceptionally, for lotteries and sporting bets in order to provide a suitable alternative to the illegal supply of games of chance as well as to combat the development and spread thereof, but

| — | on the other hand, under the law in force in one of that member state’s Länder, subject to certain specified objective conditions, an authorisation for the marketing of sporting bets on the internet must be issued to any EU citizen or equivalent legal person, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the restriction on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the rest of the Federal Republic in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which it pursues? |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, under the law in force in one of that member state’s Länder, subject to certain specified objective conditions, an authorisation for the marketing of sporting bets on the internet must be issued to any EU citizen or equivalent legal person, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the restriction on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the rest of the Federal Republic in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which it pursues?

| 2. | Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the different legal position in one Land removes altogether or significantly undermines the effectiveness of the restrictions on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the other Länder in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which they pursue?
  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the different legal position in one Land removes altogether or significantly undermines the effectiveness of the restrictions on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the other Länder in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which they pursue?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

| 3. | Is the inconsistency avoided by the Land with the divergent regulation adopting the restrictions on games of chance in force in the rest of the Länder, ever where, in relation to the administrative licensing contracts already concluded there, the previous more generous rules on internet games of chance in that Land remain in force for a transitional period of several years because those authorisations cannot be revoked, or cannot be revoked without incurring compensation payments which the Land would find difficult to bear? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the inconsistency avoided by the Land with the divergent regulation adopting the restrictions on games of chance in force in the rest of the Länder, ever where, in relation to the administrative licensing contracts already concluded there, the previous more generous rules on internet games of chance in that Land remain in force for a transitional period of several years because those authorisations cannot be revoked, or cannot be revoked without incurring compensation payments which the Land would find difficult to bear?

| 4. | Does the answer to the third question depend on whether, during the transition period of several years, the effectiveness of the restrictions on games of chance in force in the other Länder is removed altogether or significantly undermined? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the answer to the third question depend on whether, during the transition period of several years, the effectiveness of the restrictions on games of chance in force in the other Länder is removed altogether or significantly undermined?

---