CELEX: 62015CA0303
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-303/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi v G. M., M. S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Technical regulations in the gambling sector — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations — Inapplicability of rules classifiable as technical regulations not notified to the Commission)

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/7
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi v G. M., M. S.
   (Case C-303/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Technical regulations in the gambling sector - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation on Member States to notify the European Commission of all draft technical regulations - Inapplicability of rules classifiable as technical regulations not notified to the Commission))
   (2016/C 462/10)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Referring court
   
   Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Naczelnik Urzędu Celnego I w Łodzi
   
      Defendants: G. M., M. S.
   
      Intervener in support of the defendants: Colin Wiliams sp. z o.o.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within the scope of the concept of a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of that directive, subject to obligatory notification under Article 8(1) of that directive, the penalty for failure to fulfil that obligation being that such a regulation is inapplicable.
   
      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.