Case C-453/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 17 October 2008 — Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Khatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis
Date: 2008-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, Mediterranean region (EU), exclusion from public-sector employment, fisheries structure, fishing area, fishing industry, interpretation of the law

C 327/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.12.2008

advertisements

in newspapers, without

5. Is a gaming operator who has been granted a licence to
operate certain gaming activities in a State and is supervised
by the competent authority in that State entitled to market
its gaming products in other Member States through, for
example,
first
applying for a licence from those States' competent authori-
ties? If this question is answered in the affirmative, does this
mean that a Member State's rules which are based on the
imposition of criminal penalties on the promotion of partici-
pation in lotteries organised abroad constitute an obstacle to
the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
services which can never be accepted on the basis of over-
riding reasons in the general interest? Is it of any significance
for the answer to the first question whether the Member
State where the gaming operator is established invokes the
same overriding reasons in the general interest as the State
where the operator wishes to market its gaming activities?

objectives of that marketing is the financing of social activ-
ities? If this question is answered in the negative, can the
restrictive policy pursued still be acceptable if the financing
of social activities is not found to be the principal objective
of the marketing?

4. Can a total prohibition on the marketing of gaming and
lotteries organised in another Member State by a gaming
company established there and supervised by that Member
State's authorities be proportionate to the objective of
controlling and supervising gaming activity, when at
the
same time there are no restrictions on the marketing of
gaming and lotteries organised by gaming companies estab-
lished in the Member State which pursues the restrictive
policy? What is the answer to the question if the objective of
such an arrangement is to limit gaming?

advertisements

in newspapers, without

5. Is a gaming operator who has been granted a licence to
operate certain gaming activities in a State and is supervised
by the competent authority in that State entitled to market
its gaming products in other Member States through, for
example,
first
applying for a licence from those States' competent authori-
ties? If this question is answered in the affirmative, does this
mean that a Member State's rules which are based on the
imposition of criminal penalties on the promotion of partici-
pation in lotteries organised abroad constitute an obstacle to
the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
services which can never be accepted on the basis of over-
riding reasons in the general interest? Is it of any significance
for the answer to the first question whether the Member
State where the gaming operator is established invokes the
same overriding reasons in the general interest as the State
where the operator wishes to market its gaming activities?

(Greece)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias
lodged on 17 October 2008 —
Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios
Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis,
Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A.
Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias,
Beis, Dimitrios Khatziandreou,
Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios
Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos,
Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K.
and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon
Dimitrakopoulos
Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis

(Case C-453/08)

(2008/C 327/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt
(Sweden) lodged on 13 October 2008 — Anders Gerdin v
Åklagaren

(Case C-448/08)

(2008/C 327/29)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anders Gerdin

Defendant: Åklagaren

Questions referred

1. May discrimination on grounds of nationality be accepted,
under some circumstances, on national gaming and lottery
markets on the basis of overriding reasons in the general
interest?

2. If there are a number of objectives pursued by the restrictive
policy adopted on a national gaming and lottery market and
one of them is the financing of social activities, can the latter
then be said to be an incidental beneficial consequence of
the restrictive policy? If this question is answered in the
negative, can the restrictive policy pursued still be acceptable
if the objective of financing social activities cannot be said to
be the principal objective of the restrictive policy?

3. Can the State rely on overriding reasons in the general
interest as justification for a restrictive gaming policy if State-
controlled companies market gaming and lotteries,
the
revenue from which accrues to the State, and one of several

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/19

Parties to the main proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Panagiotis

Claimants:
I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis,
Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis,
Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis,
Dimitrios Khatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos
K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios Karampasis,
Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos,
Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and
Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas

Defendants:
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis

Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and

Interveners: Alieftikos Agrotikos Sinetairismos gri-gri nomou
Kavalas ‘Makedonia’ and Panellinia Enosi Plioktiton Mesis Aliias
(P.E.P.M.A.)

Questions referred

1. Is it permitted, for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Council
Regulation No 1626/94, for a Member State to adopt supple-
mentary measures consisting in the complete prohibition of
the use of fishing gear whose use is in principle allowed
under the provisions of that regulation?

2. Is it permitted, for the purposes of the provisions of that
regulation, to use in the marine area of a Member State with
a Mediterranean coastline fishing gear which is not included
among the gear specified as being in principle prohibited in
Article 2(3) and Article 3(1) and (1a) of the regulation and
whose use was prohibited before the regulation entered into
force by a national provision of the Member State?

Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-458/08)

(2008/C 327/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The Portuguese law on access to construction activity and
continued operation therein (Decree-Law No 12/2004) makes
the exercise of construction activity in Portugal subject to a
licence.

No undertaking, without exception, may carry on in Portugal
building, rebuilding, extension, alteration, repair, conservation,
cleaning, restoration or demolition work or, in general terms,
any work whatsoever related to construction without prior
authorisation issued by the Portuguese authorities.

including Community undertakings,

The Portuguese competition legislation prohibiting undertak-
ings,
from providing
construction services in Portugal without prior authorisation to
the construction industry issued by the Portuguese
enter
authorities constitutes an infringement of Article 49 EC.

The requirements for access to the building industry, as laid
down in the Portuguese legislation, are establishment require-
ments. The Portuguese legislation does not distinguish establish-
ment from the provision of services of a temporary nature.

In order to provide services in Portugal undertakings established
in another Member State are obliged to satisfy all the conditions
necessary for establishment, which means in practice that there
is no solution for those construction companies other than to
establish themselves in Portugal. Such a requirement seriously
restricts freedom to provide services.

The requirements in relation to continuing to operate also
amount to restrictions of the freedom to provide services, for
they make it impossible to provide construction services of a
temporary nature.

The reasons given by the Portuguese State in order to justify the
restrictions in question have not been substantiated and cannot
be taken into consideration.

Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-460/08)

(2008/C 327/32)

Language of the case: Greek

— A declaration that the Portuguese Republic, by imposing in
respect of the provision of building services in Portugal the
same requirements as in respect of establishment, has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and D. Triantafillou)

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Defendant: Hellenic Republic