Case C-262/07: Order of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 — Classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2008-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), admissibility, judicial proceedings, manufactured goods, rights of the defence, tobacco industry

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/17

Order of the Court of 19 February 2008 — Tokai Europe
GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-262/07) (1)

(Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 — Classification of
certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature — Appeal in
in part manifestly
part manifestly

inadmissible

and

unfounded)

(2008/C 128/28)

Language of the case: German

a

for

preliminary

from the
Reference
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht
(Germany)
lodged on 30 January 2008 — Carmen Media Group Ltd v
Land Schleswig-Holstein and Minister for the Interior for
the Land Schleswig-Holstein

ruling

(Case C-46/08)

(2008/C 128/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht

Parties

Appellant: Tokai Europe GmbH (represented by: G. Kroemer,
Rechtsanwalt)

Parties to the main proceedings

the European
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: S. Schønberg and B. Schima,
acting as Agents)

Applicant: Carmen Media Group Ltd

Defendants: Land Schleswig-Holstein and Minister for the Interior
for the Land Schleswig-Holstein

Re:

Questions referred

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 19 March 2007 in Case T-183/04 Tokai Europe v
Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an
action for
of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of
certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64,
p. 21) — Requirement to be individually concerned by the
contested regulation — Right to a fair hearing

annulment

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

1. Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that reliance
on the freedom to provide services requires that a service
provider be permitted, in accordance with the provisions of
the Member State in which it is established, to provide that
service there as well — in the present case, restriction of the
Gibraltar gambling licence to ‘offshore bookmaking’?

2. Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national
monopoly on the operation of sports betting and lotteries
(with more than a low potential risk of addiction), justified
primarily on the grounds of combating the risk of gambling
addiction, whereas other games of chance, with considerable
potential risk of addiction, may be provided in that Member
State by private service providers, and the different legal rules
for sports betting and lotteries, on the one hand, and other
games of chance, on the other, are based on the differing
legislative powers of the Bund and the Länder?

2. Tokai Europe GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

If question (2) is answered in the affirmative:

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

3. Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding national
rules which make entitlement to the grant of a licence to
operate and arrange games of chance subject to the discre-
tion of the competent licensing authority, even where the
conditions for the grant of a licence as laid down in the legis-
lation have been fulfilled?