Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:270
Date: 2017-04-05
Language of the case: Hungarian
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 June 2017 1. Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Betting and gaming — National legislation which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance — Practical impossibility of obtaining such a concession or licence for operators established in other Member States — Justification — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Failure to comply with the obligation of transparency (Art. 56 TFEU) 2. Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Betting and gaming — National legislation which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance — Incompatibility with Article 56 TFEU — Sanctions against wrongdoers — Unlawful (Art. 56 TFEU) 1. Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States. As regards, in the first place, national legislation such as that in force on 25 June 2014, it must be held that a rule of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which trustworthy operators of games of chance must have carried out, for a period of at least 10 years in the territory of that Member State, an activity of organisation of games of chance, creates a difference in treatment in that it puts operators of games of chance established in other Member States at a disadvantage compared to the national operators concerned who may fulfil that condition more easily. The mere fact of putting forward an objective of general interest cannot suffice to justify such a difference in treatment. As regards, in the second place, national legislation such as that in force on 29 August 2014, the obligation to have carried out an activity of organising games of chance for three years in a Member State does not create an advantage for operators established in the host Member State and could be justified by a general interest objective. However, it is important that the rules in question are applied transparently to all tenderers. That requirement is not satisfied by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose conditions governing the exercise of the powers of the Minister for the Economy which it sets in such a procedure and technical conditions having to be fulfilled by operators of games of chance when submitting their tenders, were not defined with sufficient precision. (see paras 44-48, operative part 1) 2. Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding penalties, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national legislation introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to Article 56 TFEU. (see para. 51, operative part 2)