Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:505
Date: 2012-07-19
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the necessity and relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions, hypothetical questions raised in a context that excludes a useful answer and questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings — Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State — Jurisdiction in the light of the potential applicability of the rule of EU law to the dispute on account of a prohibition on discrimination established by national law (Art. 267 TFEU) 3. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Treaty provisions — Respective scopes — Criteria — Determination by the national court (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) 4. Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — National legislation making the opening of establishments for various games of chance subject to an administrative authorisation and conferring on the relevant local authorities broad discretion in that regard — Justification on grounds of substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned — Whether permissible — Conditions — Observance of public order, proportionality, objectivity and transparency in the exercise of such discretion — To be determined by the national court (Art. 49 EC) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 17) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 18-21) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 24-31) 4. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which confers on local authorities a broad discretion in enabling them to refuse authorisation to open a casino, amusement arcade or bingo hall on grounds of ‘substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned’, provided that that legislation is genuinely intended to reduce opportunities for gambling and to limit activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner or to ensure the maintenance of public order and in so far as the competent authorities exercise their powers of discretion in a transparent manner, so that the impartiality of the authorisation procedures can be monitored, it being for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied. (see para. 48, operative part)