# C_2020161EN.01001702.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 16 December 2019 — Fluctus s.r.o. and Others

(Case C-920/19)

(2020/C 161/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fluctus s.r.o., Fluentum s.r.o., KI

Respondent authority: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark

Other party: Finanzpolizei Team 96 für das Finanzamt Deutschlandsberg Leibnitz Voitsberg

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the impermissible advertising practices of the licence holder formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its established case-law in the case of a State gambling monopoly, the relevant issue is whether there has in fact been growth in the gambling market considered overall in the relevant period, or is it sufficient that the advertising is aimed at stimulating active participation in gambling, such as by trivialising gambling, conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the impermissible advertising practices of the licence holder formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its established case-law in the case of a State gambling monopoly, the relevant issue is whether there has in fact been growth in the gambling market considered overall in the relevant period, or is it sufficient that the advertising is aimed at stimulating active participation in gambling, such as by trivialising gambling, conferring on it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings?

| 2. | Is Article 56 TFEU also to be interpreted as meaning that advertising practices of a monopolist, should they exist, in any event rule out the coherence of the monopoly system, or is it possible for active participation in gambling also to be stimulated by the monopolist in the event of corresponding advertising activities of private providers, such as by trivialising gambling, giving it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 56 TFEU also to be interpreted as meaning that advertising practices of a monopolist, should they exist, in any event rule out the coherence of the monopoly system, or is it possible for active participation in gambling also to be stimulated by the monopolist in the event of corresponding advertising activities of private providers, such as by trivialising gambling, giving it a positive image because revenues derived from it are used for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness by means of enticing advertising messages holding out the tantalising prospect of major winnings?

| 3. | Is a national court which is called upon, within the scope of its jurisdiction, to apply Article 56 TFEU under a duty, of its own motion, to give full effect to those provisions by refusing to apply any, in its opinion, conflicting provision of national law, even if the compliance of such a provision with EU law has been confirmed in constitutional-law proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a national court which is called upon, within the scope of its jurisdiction, to apply Article 56 TFEU under a duty, of its own motion, to give full effect to those provisions by refusing to apply any, in its opinion, conflicting provision of national law, even if the compliance of such a provision with EU law has been confirmed in constitutional-law proceedings?

---