Case C-186/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou
Date: 2011-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, business management, crime, game of chance








C_2011186EN.01001501.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou
(Case C-186/11)
2011/C 186/26
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc

Respondents: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou

Questions referred







1.


Is national legislation which, in order to attain the objective of restricting the supply of games of chance, grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single undertaking, which has the form of a public limited company and is listed on the stock exchange, compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty where, moreover, that undertaking advertises the games of chance which it organises and it expands abroad, players participate freely and the maximum bet and winnings are set per form and not per player?










2.


If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is national legislation which, in seeking exclusively to combat criminality by exercising control over the undertakings that operate in the sector at issue so as to ensure that those activities are carried out solely within controlled systems, grants a single undertaking the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty even where grant of the right results in parallel in unrestricted expansion of the supply in question? Or is it necessary in every case, in order for that restriction to be considered suitable for achieving the objective of combating criminality, that the expansion of supply be controlled in any event, that is to say, be only as great as is required in order to achieve that objective? If that expansion must in any event be controlled, can expansion be considered controlled from that point of view if the exclusive right in the sector in question is granted to a body with the attributes described in the first question referred? Finally, if grant of the exclusive right in question is considered to result in controlled expansion of the supply of games of chance, does its grant to just a single undertaking go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that the same objective can also be profitably served by granting that right to more than one undertaking?










3.


If, following the above two questions referred, it were to be held that the grant, by the national provisions relevant in the case in point, of an exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance is not compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty: (a) is it permissible, for the purposes of those provisions of the Treaty, for the national authorities not to examine, during a transitional period necessary in order to enact rules compatible with the EC Treaty, applications to engage in the activities in question submitted by persons lawfully established in other Member States; (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, on the basis of what criteria is the duration of that transitional period determined; (c) if no transitional period is allowed, on the basis of what criteria must the national authorities rule on the applications?