CELEX: 62008CN0258
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-18 00:00:00
Title: 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

30.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/26
            
         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
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Appellants: Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd
   
      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 case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, particularly in the judgment 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 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 55, in fine)?
            
         
               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 particular 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 satisfies 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 regard under civil law, inasmuch as the opposing party contravened the national legislation in question, thereby gaining an unfair advantage over the party operating with the required licence?
            
         
               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?