62019CO0920_INF
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 May 2021 – Fluctus and Others
(Case C‑920/19) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling – Dual system of organisation of the market – Monopoly on lottery products and casino games – Prior authorisation for the use of automatic gaming machines – Advertising practices of the monopolist – Criteria for assessment – Constitutional case-law finding the national legislation to be compatible with EU law)
1.
Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Games of chance – National legislation instituting a State monopoly for the organisation of certain games of chance and a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of other games – Whether permissible – Advertising practices of monopoly holders aimed at stimulating active participation in gambling – Consistent and systematic nature of that national legislation – Overall assessment by the national court
(Art. 56 TFEU)
(see paras 30-32, 36, 40, 46-49, 53, operative part 1)
2.
EU law – Primacy – Conflicting national law – Inapplicability as a matter of law of existing provisions – Obligation to comply with instructions of a higher court that are contrary to EU law – Unlawful
(Arts 56 and 267 TFEU)
(see paras 57, 58, 60, operative part 2)
Operative part
1.
Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance on the sole ground that the advertising practices of the holder of the monopoly on lottery products and casino games aim at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by trivialising gambling, by 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.
The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as requiring a national court of a Member State to disapply a provision of national law which is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, including where a higher court of that Member State has held that that provision was consistent with EU law.
(
1
)	OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.