Case C-359/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State monopoly, game of chance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, service concession

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches
Landessozialgericht (Germany), lodged on 30 July 2007 —
und
Kattner

GmbH v Maschinenbau-

Stahlbau

Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft

(Case C-350/07)

(2007/C 269/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sächsisches Landessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kattner Stahlbau GmbH

Defendants: Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft

Questions referred

1. Is the respondent Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenos-
of
undertaking within

the meaning

senschaft
an
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?

2. Does the compulsory affiliation of
respondent infringe Community law?

the appellant

to the

a

for

from the
Reference
Verwaltungsgericht
on
lodged
2 August 2007 — Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH
v Land Baden-Württemberg

ruling
(Germany),

preliminary

Stuttgart

(Case C-358/07)

(2007/C 269/38)

policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a
whole, because the operators which have been granted a
licence within that Member State encourage and advertise
participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports
betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the
same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as
betting on certain sporting events
slot
machines and casino games — may be provided by private
service providers?

(horse racing),

2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the
competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not
restricted to the particular national
territory, entitle the
holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it
to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other
Member States as well without any additional national
authorisations being required?

a

for

from the
Reference
Verwaltungsgericht
on
lodged
2 August 2007 — SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v
Land Baden-Württemberg

ruling
(Germany),

preliminary

Stuttgart

(Case C-359/07)

(2007/C 269/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Language of the case: German

Applicant: SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting
and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting
and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic
policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a
whole, because the operators which have been granted a
licence within that Member State encourage and advertise
participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports
betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the
same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as
betting on certain sporting events
slot
machines and casino games — may be provided by private
service providers?

(horse racing),

C 269/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the
competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not
territory, entitle the
restricted to the particular national
holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it
to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other
Member States as well without any additional national
authorisations being required?

holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it
to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other
Member States as well without any additional national
authorisations being required?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
Prud'Hommes de Beauvais (France) lodged on 2 August
2007 — Olivier Polier v Najar EURL

from the
lodged
on
Land
v

(Case C-361/07)

(2007/C 269/41)

Language of the case: French

for

Reference
Verwaltungsgericht
2 August

a

Stuttgart
2007 — Andreas

preliminary

ruling
(Germany),

Kunert

Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-360/07)

(2007/C 269/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Kunert

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting
and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic
policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a
whole, because the operators which have been granted a
licence within that Member State encourage and advertise
participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports
betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the
same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as
betting on certain sporting events
slot
machines and casino games — may be provided by private
service providers?

(horse racing),

2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the
competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not
territory, entitle the
restricted to the particular national

Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olivier Polier

Defendant: Najar EURL

Question referred

Is Order No 2005-893 (1) of 2 August 2005, which allows
dismissal during the consolidation period of two years provided
for
(Contrat Nouvelle
Embauche) without giving details as to the legitimacy of the
termination and without prior information, valid in the light of:

in the New Recruitment Contract

(1) European law, as defined in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, which makes it clear that workers are entitled not to
be dismissed without valid reason;

(2) [Convention No] 158 of the International Labour Organisa-

tion concerning termination of employment; and

(3) The European Social Charter?

(1) Order No 2005-893 of 2 August 2005 concerning the ‘New Recruit-
JORF No 179, of 3 August 2005,

ment’ Employment Contract,
p. 12689.