# C_2019122EN.01000301.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Pólus Vegas Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-665/18)

(2019/C 122/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pólus Vegas Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | May paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that domestic legislation increases five-fold the fixed-rate tax on gaming, without providing for any transitional arrangements, while at the same time introducing a proportional tax on gaming, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that domestic legislation increases five-fold the fixed-rate tax on gaming, without providing for any transitional arrangements, while at the same time introducing a proportional tax on gaming, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU?

| 2. | May the terms ‘impede’ or ‘render less attractive’ which are used in the judgment in Case C-98/14 be interpreted — having regard to and in application of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — as meaning that an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming in a Member State deprives the organisers of games of chance in amusement arcades of their profits in a disproportionate and discriminatory fashion which distorts competition in favour of casinos and infringes the aforementioned Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the terms ‘impede’ or ‘render less attractive’ which are used in the judgment in Case C-98/14 be interpreted — having regard to and in application of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — as meaning that an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming in a Member State deprives the organisers of games of chance in amusement arcades of their profits in a disproportionate and discriminatory fashion which distorts competition in favour of casinos and infringes the aforementioned Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 3. | May the content of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operation of gaming machines ceases to be profitable and may be carried on only at a loss as a result of an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming warrants the assessment that that increase has the effect of ‘impeding’ that activity or ‘rendering it less attractive’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the content of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operation of gaming machines ceases to be profitable and may be carried on only at a loss as a result of an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming warrants the assessment that that increase has the effect of ‘impeding’ that activity or ‘rendering it less attractive’?

| 4. | In the context of the implementation in the Member State of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14, may the freedom to provide services be interpreted as meaning that amusement arcades and casinos operated in a Member State must, in principle, be assumed to entail an EU cross-border component consisting in the fact that EU citizens from other Member States may also make use of the gaming opportunities in question? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the context of the implementation in the Member State of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14, may the freedom to provide services be interpreted as meaning that amusement arcades and casinos operated in a Member State must, in principle, be assumed to entail an EU cross-border component consisting in the fact that EU citizens from other Member States may also make use of the gaming opportunities in question?

---