Case C-258/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 18 June 2008 — Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd v Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator
Date: 2008-06-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, advertising, fraud, freedom to provide services, game of chance, interpretation of the law, national law

C 223/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

has failed to apply all the criteria in Annex III to all projects
in Annex II.

(Case C-255/08)

(2008/C 223/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
(3) OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, lodged on 18 June 2008 — Ladbrokes Betting
& Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd v Stichting
de Nationale Sporttotalisator

(Case C-258/08)

(2008/C 223/41)

Language of the case: Dutch

necessary

provisions

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
comply with
administrative
Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of
the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, as amended by Directives
97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3),

to

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Appellants: Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes
International Ltd

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. According to Article 249, third paragraph, EC a directive is
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State to which it is addressed, but leaves to the national
authorities the choice of form and methods.

2. The Member States must also adopt the necessary measures
in order to implement directives in national law within the
prescribed period and to inform the Commission of those
measures.

3. In the present case, Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC
provides that the Member States are to bring into force the
necessary provisions
to comply with the directive by
14 March 1999 at the latest and to notify the Commission
forthwith thereof. However, the Netherlands has failed to do
so.

the Netherlands has failed to adopt

4. On the basis of the above the Commission must conclude
the necessary
that
measures to correctly implement Article 4(2) and (3)
in
conjunction with Annexes II and III of Directive 85/337/EEC,
as amended by Directives 97/11 and 2003/35/EC, in that it

Respondent: Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator

Questions referred

1. Does a restrictive national gaming policy which is aimed at
channelling the propensity to gamble and which in fact
contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by
the national legislation in question, namely, the curbing of
gambling addiction and the prevention of fraud, inasmuch
as, by reason of the regulated offer of games of chance,
participation in gambling activities occurs on a (much)
more limited scale than would be the case if there were no
national regulatory system, satisfy the condition set out in
the European
the case-law of
Communities, particularly
in Case
C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031, that
such restrictions must limit betting activities in a consistent
and systematic manner, even where the licence holder/s is/
are permitted to make the games of chance which it/they
offer/s attractive by introducing new games, to bring the
games which it/they offer/s to the notice of a wide public
by means of advertising and thereby to keep (potential)
gamblers away from the unlawful offer of games of chance
(see Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placa-
nica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 55, in fine)?

the Court of

Justice of

judgment

in the

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/27

2a. Assuming that national legislation governing gaming policy
is compatible with Article 49 EC,
is it for the national
courts to determine, on every occasion on which they
apply that legislation in practice in an actual case, whether
the measure to be imposed, such as an order that a particu-
lar website be made inaccessible to residents of the Member
State concerned by means of software designed for that
purpose, in order to prevent them from participating in the
games of chance offered thereon, in itself and as such satis-
fies the condition, in the specific circumstances of the case,
that it should actually serve the objectives which might
justify the national legislation in question, and whether the
restriction resulting from that legislation and its application
on the freedom to provide services is not disproportionate
in the light of those objectives?

2b. In answering Question 2a, does it make any difference if
the measure to be implemented is not ordered and imposed
in the context of the application of the national legislation
by the authorities, but in the context of a civil action in
which an organiser of games of chance operating with the
required licence requests imposition of the measure on the
ground that an unlawful act has been committed in its
inasmuch as the opposing party
regard under civil
contravened the national
legislation in question, thereby
gaining an unfair advantage over the party operating with
the required licence?

law,

3.

Should Article 49 EC be interpreted in such a way that the
application of that article results in the competent authority
of a Member State being unable, on the basis of the closed
licensing system that exists in that State for the provision of
gaming services, to prohibit a service provider which has
already been granted a licence in another Member State for
the online provision of such services from also offering
those services online in the first Member State?

Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04
Michail v Commission

Form of order sought

— Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded;

— Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of

First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04;

— Order as appropriate that costs be paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal.

In his first ground of appeal, Mr Michail claims that the Court
of First Instance erred in the interpretation and application of
Community law and failed to comply with its duty to state
reasons in judgments, in that the Court acknowledged, in the
contested judgment, that the Commission was partly responsible
for the appellant feeling that he was subject to psychological
harassment, within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff
Regulations, but nonetheless rejected his action as unfounded.

In his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that
the facts
the Court of First
presented for its assessment, in particular by examining the facts
individually and not in their overall context, and that the Court
made several errors in the legal classification of those facts.

Instance distorted the sense of

In his third ground of appeal, the appellant lastly criticises the
decision of the Court of First Instance to reject as inadmissible,
for lack of precision, the numerous pleas in law on which he
relied in support of his action, alleging, inter alia, infringement
of Articles 21a, 22a and 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the
principles of equal treatment and proportionality. By breaking
down his action into several parts, the Court of First Instance
altered the essential nature of the action in its objectives and
structure.

(Case C-268/08 P)

(2008/C 223/42)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission v
Germany

(Case C-271/08)

(2008/C 223/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C Meidanis. lawyer)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany