Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:82
Date: 2010-02-23
Language of the case: Swedish
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment 1. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling (Art. 49 EC) 2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling (Art. 49 EC) 1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States. Considerations of a cultural, moral or religious nature may justify restrictions on the freedom of gambling operators to provide services, in particular in so far as it could be considered unacceptable to allow private profit to be drawn from the exploitation of a social evil or the weakness of players and their misfortune. According to the scale of values held by each of the Member States and having regard to the discretion available to them, a Member State may restrict the operation of gambling by entrusting it to public or charitable bodies. The prohibition of the promotion of the services of such operators, which are private undertakings run for profit, to consumers resident in the Member State at issue therefore reflects the objective of the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector and can, moreover, be regarded as necessary in order to meet such an objective. (see paras 43-46, operative part 1) 2. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions. That court must examine whether the two infringements at issue, although covered by different bodies of rules, are nevertheless subject to equivalent treatment under the applicable national legislation. That court must in particular ascertain whether, on the facts, those infringements are prosecuted by the competent authorities with the same diligence and lead to the imposition of equivalent penalties by the competent courts. (see paras 55, 57, operative part 2)