Case C-204/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation
Date: 2008-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, air transport, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, jurisdiction

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/11

Questions referred

that

1. Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EC of 22 June
1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (1) to
be interpreted to the effect
it precludes a clause,
contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance
in
of a legal expenses insurer, which entitles the insurer,
respect of insurance claims concerning losses suffered by a
large number of insured persons as a result of the same
event (for example the insolvency of an investment services
undertaking),
to select a legal representative and which
thereby restricts the right of the individual insured person to
choose his own lawyer (so-called ‘mass torts clause’)?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative:

What are the requirements for the existence of a ‘mass tort’
which, in accordance with (or as a complement to) Directive
87/344/EEC, confers on the insurer instead of the insured
person the right to select the legal representative?

(1) OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.

licence has already been granted in another Member State to
provide those services via the internet from also offering
those services via the internet in the first Member State?

2. Is the interpretation which the Court of Justice has given to
Article 49 EC, and in particular to the principle of equality
and the duty of transparency arising therefrom, in a number
of individual cases concerning concessions applicable to the
procedure for the granting of a licence to offer services
relating to games of chance under a statutorily established
single-licence system?

3.

(a). Under a statutorily established single-licence system, can
the existing licence-
the extension of
the licence of
holder, without potential applicants being given an
opportunity to compete for that licence, be a suitable
and proportionate means of meeting the imperative
requirements in the general interest which the Court of
Justice has recognised as justifying restriction of
the
freedom to provide services in respect of games of
chance? If so, under what conditions?

(b). Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 3(a)
whether Question 2 is answered in the affirmative or
the negative?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting
Exchange
‘Betfair’;
other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale
Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing

trading

under

name

Ltd,

the

(Case C-203/08)

(2008/C 197/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Peter
Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation

(Case C-204/08)

(2008/C 197/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Raad van State

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name
‘Betfair’

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Rehder

Defendant: Air Baltic Corporation

Other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sportto-
talisator and Scientific Games Racing

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Should Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that, where
a closed licensing system is applied in a Member State to the
provision of services relating to games of chance, the applica-
tion of that article precludes the competent authority of that
Member State from prohibiting a service provider to whom a

1. Is the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in
journeys by air from one Member State to
the case of
another the single place of performance for all contractual
obligations must be taken to be the place of the main provi-
sion of services, determined according to economic criteria?

C 197/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

2. Where a single place of performance is to be determined:
What criteria are relevant for its determination; is the single
place of performance determined, in particular, by the place
of departure or the place of arrival?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-211/08)

(2008/C 197/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by refusing persons entitled under the Spanish
Sistema Nacional de Salud (National health system) reimbur-
sement of medical costs incurred by them in another
Member State in the event of hospital treatment received in
accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social
to self-
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community (1) (‘Regulation 1408/71’), in so far
as the level of cover applicable in the Member State in
which that treatment is given is lower than that provided for
in Spanish legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty;

to employed persons,

security schemes

2. When the level of cover of hospital costs applicable under
the rules of another Member State is less favourable than
that provided under Spanish legislation, the refusal of the
Spanish authorities to reimburse the difference may dissuade
persons entitled under the Sistema Nacional de Salud to
move to that Member State in order to receive non-medical
services (for example, educational or tourist services) or, in
the case of persons entitled who have already moved, induce
them to return sooner in order to receive free hospital treat-
ment in Spain. The Spanish provision at issue may therefore
restrict both the provision of those various medical services
which initially motivate the temporary move of a person
entitled to another Member State, and the subsequent provi-
sion of medical services in that Member State in accordance
with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation 1408/71.

3. Those restrictions on the freedom to provide services are not
justified under the Treaty. In particular, the Spanish authori-
ties have not proved that those restrictions are necessary to
avoid seriously undermining the financial balance of
the
Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud. Accordingly, the provi-
sion at issue infringes Article 49 EC.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France) lodged on 21 May 2008 — Société Zeturf Limited
v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche,
Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer et des Collectivités
territoriales, Ministre de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de
l'Emploi — Intervening party: G.I.E. Pari Mutuel Urbain
(PMU)

(Case C-212/08)

(2008/C 197/20)

Language of the case: French

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Referring court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Conseil d'État

1. Spanish legislation on social security matters provides that
hospital benefits covered by the Sistema Nacional de Salud
must be provided by its own system, except in very excep-
tional cases of ‘urgent, immediate health assistance which is
essential’. As a result, when a person entitled under the
Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud moves temporarily to
another Member State and, during that stay, receives assis-
tance in hospital which is necessary from the medical point
of view in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation
1408/71, the costs incurred by him are not reimbursed by
the Spanish authorities.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Zeturf Limited

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la
Pêche, Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer et des Collectivités
territoriales, Ministre de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de l'Emploi
— intervening party: G.I.E. Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)