Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:174
Date: 2025-03-13
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Translation C-120/24 – 1 
Case C-120/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
15 February 2024 
Referring court: 
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 February 2024 
Applicant at first instance and appellant: 
‘Unigames’ UAB 
Defendant at first instance and respondent: 
Lošimų priežiūros tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų 
ministerijos 
  
[…] 
LIETUVOS VYRIAUSIASIS ADMINISTRACINIS TEISMAS 
(Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) 
ORDER 
14 February 2024 
[…] 
The Chamber, in extended composition, of the Supreme Administrative Court of 
Lithuania […] [composition of the court] […], has examined, at a sitting of the 
court under the written appeal procedure, the administrative case concerning the 
appeal lodged by the appellant, the private limited liability company Unigames, 
against the judgment of the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Regional 
Administrative Court, Vilnius, Lithuania) of 10 August 2022 in the administrative 
case relating to the action brought by the appellant […] against the respondent, the 
Lošimų priežiūros tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2024 – CASE C-120/24 
 
2  
(Gambling Supervisory Authority under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic 
of Lithuania), seeking the annulment of an order. 
The Chamber, in extended composition, 
has established as follows: 
I. 
1 The present case concerns a dispute between the appellant, the private limited 
liability company Unigames, which has been granted licence No 0118 to operate 
gambling activities with category B machines (‘the appellant’), and the 
respondent, the Gambling Supervisory Authority under the Ministry of Finance of 
the Republic of Lithuania (‘the respondent’ or ‘the Authority’), concerning 
Tarnybos direktoriaus 2022 m. gegužės 19 d. įsakymas Nr. DIE-314 „Dėl atlikto 
UAB „Unigames“ neplaninio specialiojo patikrinimo pagal 2021 m. spalio 14 d. 
pavedimą patikrinti Nr. PT-36-(7.3)“ (Order No DIE-314 of the Director of the 
Authority of 19 May 2021 concerning the unscheduled special inspection of 
‘Unigames’ UAB carried out pursuant to inspection order No PT-36-(7.3) of 
14 October 2021) (‘the Order’). 
Legal framework. European Union law 
2 Article 5(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of 
information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information 
Society services (codification) (‘Directive 2015/1535’) states: 
‘1. Subject to Article 7, Member States shall immediately communicate to the 
Commission any draft technical regulation, except where it merely transposes the 
full text of an international or European standard, in which case information 
regarding the relevant standard shall suffice; they shall also let the Commission 
have a statement of the grounds which make the enactment of such a technical 
regulation necessary, where those grounds have not already been made clear in the 
draft. 
Where appropriate, and unless it has already been sent with a prior 
communication, Member States shall simultaneously communicate the text of the 
basic legislative or regulatory provisions principally and directly concerned to the 
Commission, should knowledge of such text be necessary to assess the 
implications of the draft technical regulation. 
Member States shall communicate the draft technical regulation again to the 
Commission under the conditions set out in the first and second subparagraphs of 
this paragraph if they make changes to the draft that have the effect of 
significantly altering its scope, shortening the timetable originally envisaged for 
implementation, adding specifications or requirements, or making the latter more 
restrictive. 
UNIGAMES 
 
3 
….’ 
3 Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535 defines ‘service’ as meaning ‘any 
Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for 
remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a 
recipient of services. 
For the purposes of this definition: 
(i) “at a distance” means that the service is provided without the parties being 
simultaneously present; 
(ii) “by electronic means” means that the service is sent initially and received at 
its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including 
digital compression) and storage of data, and entirely transmitted, conveyed and 
received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means; 
(iii) “at the individual request of a recipient of services” means that the service is 
provided through the transmission of data on individual request. 
An indicative list of services not covered by this definition is set out in Annex I.’ 
4 Article 1(1)(e) of Directive 2015/1535 states that ‘rule on services’ means a 
‘requirement of a general nature relating to the taking-up and pursuit of service 
activities within the meaning of point (b), in particular provisions concerning the 
service provider, the services and the recipient of services, excluding any rules 
which are not specifically aimed at the services defined in that point. 
For the purposes of this definition: 
(i) a rule shall be considered to be specifically aimed at Information Society 
services where, having regard to its statement of reasons and its operative part, the 
specific aim and object of all or some of its individual provisions is to regulate 
such services in an explicit and targeted manner; 
(ii) a rule shall not be considered to be specifically aimed at Information Society 
services if it affects such services only in an implicit or incidental manner’. 
5 A ‘technical regulation’ is defined in Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535 as 
‘technical specifications and other requirements or rules on services, including the 
relevant administrative provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure 
or de facto, in the case of marketing, provision of a service, establishment of a 
service operator or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as laws, 
regulations or administrative provisions of Member States, except those provided 
for in Article 7, prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a 
product or prohibiting the provision or use of a service, or establishment as a 
service provider. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2024 – CASE C-120/24 
 
4  
De facto technical regulations shall include: 
(i) laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State which refer 
either to technical specifications or to other requirements or to rules on services, 
or to professional codes or codes of practice which in turn refer to technical 
specifications or to other requirements or to rules on services, compliance with 
which confers a presumption of conformity with the obligations imposed by the 
aforementioned laws, regulations or administrative provisions; 
(ii) voluntary agreements to which a public authority is a contracting party and 
which provide, in the general interest, for compliance with technical specifications 
or other requirements or rules on services, excluding public procurement tender 
specifications; 
(iii) technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services which are 
linked to fiscal or financial measures affecting the consumption of products or 
services by encouraging compliance with such technical specifications or other 
requirements or rules on services; technical specifications or other requirements or 
rules on services linked to national social security systems are not included. 
This comprises technical regulations imposed by the authorities designated by the 
Member States and appearing on a list drawn up and updated, where appropriate, 
by the Commission, in the framework of the Committee referred to in Article 2. 
The same procedure shall be used for amending this list’. 
Legal basis. National law 
6 Article 10(19) of the Lietuvos Respublikos azartinių lošimų įstatymas (Law of the 
Republic of Lithuania on gambling (in the version of Law No XIV-337 of 20 May 
2021, which is relevant to the present administrative case; ‘the Law on gambling’) 
states: ‘In the Republic of Lithuania, it shall be prohibited to encourage 
participation in gambling by disseminating information or by performing acts of 
persuasion in any form and by any means, including special events, trial games, 
promotions, discounts, gifts and similar incentives operated by the gambling 
operator itself, for the purpose of encouraging participation in gambling or remote 
gambling.’ 
7 Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling, in the version in force until the 
amendment made by the Law of 20 May 2021 (in the version of Law No XII-1734 
of 21 May 2015), stated that ‘in the Republic of Lithuania, it shall be prohibited to 
encourage participation in gambling in the following ways: 
(1) by granting the player the right to receive gifts from the gambling operator 
on an immediate basis or within a certain period following participation in 
gambling; 
UNIGAMES 
 
5 
(2) by operating games or competitions, trial games, lotteries and other events 
that encourage participation in gambling, including remote gambling, outside of 
gambling venues or the gambling operator’s website.’ 
Relevant facts 
8 The following information was recorded by specialists from the Inspection Unit of 
the Authority when they checked the appellant’s website at https://uniclub.lt/: 
‘Spearhead Explosion 43 New Games!’, ‘ELK machines. 25 gaming machines!’, 
‘The hottest games’, ‘Turbo payouts. Payout in seconds!’, ‘24/7 deposits/payouts. 
Revolut is here’, ‘Choose from 1000+ casino games’, ‘… click on the Bet Builder 
offer and combine different events in the same matches! With us, this tool is valid 
for a wide range of sports and combinations! …’, ‘Cash out! Payouts before the 
end of a match!’, ‘Our experience, convenience, quality and innovation are what 
set us apart’, ‘Our gambling portal is extremely convenient and easy to use. 
Everything is designed for you to relax and have a great time’, ‘Casino games 
from top developers’, ‘Fast deposits and payouts’, and so on. That information 
was considered by the respondent to be an infringement of the prohibition on 
encouraging participation in gambling (Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling). 
9 The unscheduled inspection of the appellant, on a proposal by the Director of the 
Authority, revealed irregularities and led to the adoption the Order […], which: 
(1) finds that the appellant’s infringement has not been remedied as of the date of 
adoption of the Order, since the appellant’s website continues to publish 
information intended to draw attention to the appellant’s offer and to encourage 
gambling by means of promotional phrases or words, or intended to draw 
attention to the appellant’s credibility, the exclusivity of the appellant’s website, 
or the features of the appellant’s services, constituting an infringement of the 
prohibition on encouraging participation in gambling (Article 10(19) of the Law 
on gambling); (2) finds that the information recorded and published on the 
appellant’s website between 13 October 2021 […] and 3 February 2022 
encouraged visitors to the appellant’s website to participate in remote gambling, in 
breach of Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling; (3) confirms the commission’s 
conclusion and imposes a fine of EUR 12 662 on the appellant for the 
infringement found by the commission; (4) warns the appellant of a possible 
suspension of its licence to operate category B gambling machines as a result of 
the infringement found; (5) requires the appellant to remedy the infringement by 
no later than 20 June 2022; and (6) informs the appellant that it is under an 
obligation to pay the fine imposed by the respondent to the State budget within 
three months of the date of receipt of the Order […]. In the event of an appeal 
against the Order […], the fine must be paid within three months of the date on 
which the court decision that dismisses the appeal becomes final. 
10 […] [repeated information] 
11 The court of first instance upheld the Authority’s position and dismissed the 
appellant’s action by decision of 10 August 2022. That court did not accept the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2024 – CASE C-120/24 
 
6  
appellant’s arguments that the procedure for the adoption of Article 10(19) of the 
Law on gambling had been infringed – according to that court, the prohibition on 
encouraging gambling was not newly introduced into the Law on gambling, since 
it was included in the Law and was in force prior to the amendment to 
Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling, but the wording of the prohibition related 
to the identification of the specific types and means of encouraging gambling that 
are prohibited. The court concluded that the Lietuvos standartizacijos 
departamentas (Lithuanian Standards Board) was not under an obligation to notify 
the European Commission in accordance with the requirements of Directive 
2015/1535 before the legislature adopted the amendment to Article 10(19) of the 
Law on gambling, and therefore also rejected as unfounded the appellant’s 
arguments that Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling could not be applied to it. 
12 By its appeal, the appellant requests that the judgment of the court of first instance 
be set aside and that a new judgment be adopted upholding the appellant’s action 
and annulling the Order. 
13 In its response to the appellant’s appeal, the respondent […] requests that the 
appeal be dismissed and that the judgment of the court of first instance be left 
unaltered. 
The Chamber, in extended composition, 
finds as follows: 
II. 
14 In view of the fact that, following the amendment to the Law on gambling, the 
European Commission was not notified of the new version of Article 10(19) of the 
Law on gambling, which sets out the prohibition on encouraging participation in 
gambling, the present administrative proceedings raise questions as to the 
interpretation of Articles 1(1)(f) and 5(1) of Directive 2015/1535 in the 
circumstances of the present case. […] [obligation of the Supreme Administrative 
Court of Lithuania to make the request pursuant to the third paragraph of 
Article 267 TFEU] 
The classification of the regulation laid down in Article 10(19) of the Law on 
gambling as a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(f) of 
Directive 2015/1535 
15 In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2015/1535, 
Member States are immediately to communicate to the Commission any draft 
technical regulation, except in the cases referred to therein. That obligation to 
communicate the draft in advance applies only where it relates to a technical 
regulation within the meaning of Article 1(1)(f) of that directive (judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 3 December 2020, Star Taxi App SRL, C-62/19, 
EU:C:2020:980, paragraph 58). In the case-law of the Court of Justice, the failure 
of a Member State to comply with the obligation to communicate such a draft in 
UNIGAMES 
 
7 
advance renders the ‘technical regulation’ concerned unenforceable against 
individuals, whether in criminal proceedings (see judgment of the Court of Justice 
of 4 February 2016, Sebat Ince, C-336/14, EU:C:2016:72, paragraph 84) or in 
proceedings between individuals (see judgment of the Court of Justice, James 
Elliott Construction, C-613/14, EU:C:2016:821, paragraph 64 and the case-law 
cited). In the light of the foregoing, in the present administrative case, it is first 
necessary to ascertain whether a provision such as that set out in Article 10(19) of 
the Law on gambling (in the version relevant to the present case) constitutes a 
‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 
2015/1535. 
16 Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535 mentions four categories of technical 
regulations: (i) a ‘technical specification’; (ii) ‘other requirements’; (iii) ‘rules on 
services’; and (iv) ‘the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of Member 
States prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product or 
prohibiting the provision or use of a service, or establishment as a service 
provider’. The present Chamber, in extended composition, has no doubt that the 
provision in the relevant version of Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling does 
not fall, in the present case, within the categories of ‘technical specification’ or 
‘other requirements’, inasmuch as, in the first case, the national measure must 
refer to the product or its packaging, and, in the second case, it must lay down a 
condition capable of significantly influencing the composition, nature or 
marketing of a product (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2020, 
Syndyk Masy Upadłości ECO-WIND Construction S.A. w upadłości, C-727/17, 
EU:C:2021:492, EU:C:2020:393, paragraphs 32, 36 and 40 and the case-law 
cited). In so far as the issue raised in the present case does not concern products, 
doubts remain as to whether the national provision at issue in the present 
administrative case can be classified as a ‘rule on services’ or as a ‘law of a 
Member State prohibiting the provision or use of a service, or establishment as a 
service provider’, since the national provisions at issue may, in essence, relate to 
gambling operation services, which are subject to the prohibition on encouraging 
participation in such gambling, or may be understood as a prohibition on 
independent activity to encourage gambling, which constitutes unilateral activity 
on the part of the gambling operator and which does not meet the conditions of a 
‘service’ laid down in Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535, since it does not 
satisfy the criterion of being ‘at the individual request of a recipient of services’. 
17 Since Directive 2015/1535 repealed Directive 98/34/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the 
provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, and 
the relevant provisions of Directive 2015/1535 have essentially the same scope as 
that of the relevant provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, the Court’s case-law on that 
directive is also applicable, in principle, to Directive 2015/1535 (see, by analogy, 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 2021, Mircom International Content 
Management & Consulting (M.I.C.M.) Limited, C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, 
EU:C:107:393, paragraph 107 and the case-law cited). The Court of Justice, in its 
assessment of the rules applicable to gambling in Germany, has already clarified 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2024 – CASE C-120/24 
 
8  
that some of the provisions of the Treaty on gaming may be categorised as ‘rules 
on services’, in so far as they concern an ‘Information Society service’ within the 
meaning of Article 1.2 of Directive 98/34. Those provisions include the 
prohibition of offering games of chance on the internet laid down in 
Paragraph 4(4) of the Treaty on gaming, the exceptions to that prohibition listed in 
Paragraph 25(6) of that treaty, the restrictions placed on offering sporting bets via 
telemedia services under Paragraph 21(2) of that treaty, and the prohibition of 
broadcasting advertisements for games of chance on the internet or via 
telecommunications equipment pursuant to Paragraph 5(3) of that treaty (see 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, Sebat Ince, C-336/14, 
EU:C:2016:72, paragraph 75). The present Chamber, in extended composition, 
notes that, in the Republic of Lithuania, it is not prohibited to offer (operate) 
online gambling, but it is not permitted to disseminate information or to perform 
acts of persuasion in order to encourage participation in such gambling in any 
form and by any means. In that respect, the national provisions specify the 
conditions for the provision of gambling and impose a prohibition on the 
promotion of gambling services. 
18 In the light of the circumstances of the present case, the question before the 
Chamber, in extended composition, is whether the regulation laid down in 
Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling, in so far as it relates to information 
published on the website of a gambling operator, may be classified as a ‘technical 
regulation’ on the ground that it falls within the category of ‘rules on services’ 
within the meaning of Article 1(1)(e) of Directive 2015/1535. It is true that the 
concept of a ‘technical regulation’ covers solely regulations relating to 
information society services, that is, any service provided at a distance by 
electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services (see 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 December 2017, Bent Falbert, C-255/16, 
EU:C:2017:983, paragraph 27). However, in the circumstances of the present 
case, doubt remains as to whether the regulation laid down in Article 10(19) of the 
Law on gambling, in so far as it relates to the information published by a 
gambling operator on its own website, in fact meets all the conditions of a 
‘service’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535. Bearing in 
mind that a gambling operator provides a gambling service to a visitor on its 
website, it is natural that the website provides relevant information about 
gambling, including information that encourages the visitor to obtain the gambling 
service. In those circumstances, the Chamber, in extended composition, has 
doubts as to whether the fact that a person accesses a gambling operator’s website, 
which contains certain information about gambling, in order to obtain the 
gambling service in question means that the service is provided by means of the 
transmission of data at the request of the person concerned, that is to say, ‘at the 
individual request of a recipient of services’. 
19 The Chamber, in extended composition, therefore considers it necessary to refer to 
the Court of Justice for clarification as to whether a national provision such as that 
laid down in Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling constitutes a ‘technical 
regulation’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535, in so far 
UNIGAMES 
 
9 
as it relates to information about gambling published on the website of a gambling 
operator. 
The national legislative practice, where an amendment to a regulation is not 
notified to the European Commission 
20 If the answer to the first question confirms that Article 10(19) of the Law on 
gambling in fact constitutes a ‘technical regulation’, the question whether it 
should have been notified pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 2015/1535 is also 
relevant to the case. The case-law of the Court of Justice has clarified that, in 
order for new national legislation to be held to be a technical regulation having to 
be notified under Directive 98/34, it must not be limited to reproducing or 
replacing, without adding technical specifications or other new or additional 
requirements, existing technical regulations which have been duly notified to the 
Commission (see, to that effect, judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 December 
2017, Bent Falbert, C-255/16, EU:C:2017:983, paragraph 23 and the case-law 
cited). It is important that the economic operators of a Member State be informed 
of draft technical regulations adopted by another Member State and of their 
temporal and territorial scope, so as to enable them to be apprised of the extent of 
the obligations that may be imposed on them and to anticipate the adoption of 
those texts by adapting, if necessary, their products or services in a timely manner 
(see judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, Sebat Ince, C-336/14, 
EU:C:2016:72, paragraph 83). The Chamber, in extended composition, notes that 
the prohibition in the wording of Article 10(19) of the Law on gambling that was 
in force until 1 July 2021 had a limited scope of application, which, although it 
did not change territorially or temporally, has been substantially revised by 
subsequent amendments. The version of the Law in force until 1 July 2021 
included expressis verbis a prohibition on the operation of games or competitions, 
trial games, lotteries and other events that encourage participation in gambling, 
including remote gambling, outside of gambling venues or the gambling 
operator’s website. However, the prohibition thus formulated did not include the 
mere publication of information about gambling on the gambling operator’s 
website, which implies that the new wording of Article 10(19) of the Law on 
gambling restricted the use of marketing measures that are based on customer 
engagement and thus extended the scope of the prohibition on encouraging 
gambling that had been applied previously. 
21 The Chamber, in extended composition, therefore has doubts as to the 
consequences to be drawn by the national administrative and judicial authorities 
from a finding that the obligation under EU law to notify a technical regulation 
has been disregarded during the legislative process, as in the present case, where 
the amendments to that law constitute ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning 
of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535 […]. The Chamber, in extended 
composition, raises the question whether Directive 2015/1535 must be interpreted 
as meaning that a provision of national legislation such as the Law on gambling, 
the provisions of which must be notified pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 
2015/1535 where they are regarded as ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2024 – CASE C-120/24 
 
10  
of Article 1(1)(f) of that directive, is unenforceable against economic operators in 
proceedings to establish liability for administrative offences if the amendments 
made to the provision, which is regarded as a technical regulation, have not been 
notified but the text of the law as previously adopted was notified. 
22 In those circumstances, in order to dispel the doubts that have arisen as to the 
interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law relevant to the legal 
relationships at issue in the present dispute, it is appropriate to request the Court 
of Justice to interpret the EU provisions in question. An answer to the questions 
set out in the operative part of the present order is crucial for the present case 
because it would make it possible, in particular, to ascertain the actual content of 
the EU provisions and to ensure the primacy of EU law. 
In the light of the foregoing considerations […], […] [reference to provisions of 
procedural law] the present Chamber 
orders as follows: 
[…] [standard procedural wording] 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
(1) Does a national provision such as that laid down in Article 10(19) of the 
Lietuvos Respublikos azartinių lošimų įstatymas (Law of the Republic of 
Lithuania on gambling) constitute a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of 
Article 1(1)(f) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of 
information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information 
Society services, in so far as it relates to information about gambling published on 
the website of a gambling operator? 
(2) Must Directive 2015/1535 be interpreted as meaning that a provision of 
national legislation such as the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on gambling, the 
provisions of which must be notified pursuant to Article 5(1) of Directive 
2015/1535 where they are regarded as ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning 
of Article 1(1)(f) of that directive, is rendered unenforceable against economic 
operators in proceedings to establish liability for administrative offences if the 
amendments made to the provision, which is regarded as a technical regulation, 
have not been notified but the text of the law as previously adopted was notified? 
[…] 
[…] 
[standard procedural wording and composition of the court]