Case C-64/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Ernst Engelmann
Date: 2008-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State monopoly, advertising, game of chance, gaming establishment, interpretation of the law, service concession

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/9

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft
using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

sion and in newspapers and magazines) in a manner which
goes as far as offering a cash payment for a lottery ticket
shortly before the lottery draw is made (‘TOI TOI TOI —
Believe in luck!’)?

3. Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding
a provision under which all
licences granting the right to
operate games of chance and casinos are issued for a period
of 15 years on the basis of a scheme under which Com-
munity competitors (not belonging to that Member State) are
excluded from the tendering procedure?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Linz (Austria) lodged on 19 February 2008 — Criminal
proceedings against Ernst Engelmann

(Case C-64/08)

(2008/C 116/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Party to the main proceedings

Ernst Engelmann

Questions referred

1. Is Article 43 EC (Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity,
in the version of 2 October 1997, most recently
amended by the Treaty of 25 April 2005 concerning the
accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the
European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11)) to be interpreted as
precluding a provision which provides that only public
limited companies established in the territory of a particular
Member State may there operate games of chance in casinos,
thereby necessitating the establishment or acquisition of a
company limited by shares in that Member State?

2. Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding
a national monopoly on certain types of gaming, such as
games of chance in casinos,
if there is no consistent and
systematic policy whatsoever in the Member State concerned
to limit gaming,
licensed organisers
inasmuch as national
encourage participation in gaming — such as public sports
betting and lotteries — and advertise such gaming (on televi-

Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-70/08)

(2008/C 116/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the
Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to
the involvement of employees (1), or by not ensuring that
management and labour introduce the required provisions
by way of agreement, or, in any case, by failing to communi-
cate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has
its obligations under
Article 16(1) of that directive;

failed to fulfil

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
expired on 18 August 2006.

for

transposition of Directive 2003/72/EC

(1) OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25.