# C_2020433EN.01003801.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 9 October 2020 — RM v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

(Case C-508/20)

(2020/C 433/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RM

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

| 1. | In the context of criminal proceedings that are being conducted in order to protect a monopoly system, must the national court or tribunal examine the applicable criminal penalty rule in the light of the freedom to provide services if it has previously examined the monopoly system in accordance with the guidance provided by the European Court of Justice and that examination has revealed that the monopoly system is justified? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the context of criminal proceedings that are being conducted in order to protect a monopoly system, must the national court or tribunal examine the applicable criminal penalty rule in the light of the freedom to provide services if it has previously examined the monopoly system in accordance with the guidance provided by the European Court of Justice and that examination has revealed that the monopoly system is justified?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






  2(a) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

2(a)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed?

| 2(b) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine? |
| --- | --- |

2(b)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine?

| 2(c) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? |
| --- | --- |

2(c)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed?

| 2(d) | Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- |

2(d)

Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:






  3(a) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

3(a)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision according to which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, a fine must be imposed per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total amount of the fines imposed?

| 3(b) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine? |
| --- | --- |

3(b)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for the mandatory imposition of a minimum penalty of EUR 6 000 per gaming machine?

| 3(c) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed? |
| --- | --- |

3(c)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, by way of sanction for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, provides for a custodial sentence in the event of non-payment per gaming machine, with no absolute limit on the total number of custodial sentences imposed?

| 3(d) | Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed? |
| --- | --- |

3(d)

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in the event of a penalty being imposed for making prohibited lotteries commercially available contrary to the Law on games of chance, requires the payment of a contribution to the costs of criminal proceedings amounting to 10 % of the fines imposed?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389.

---