CELEX: C2003/264/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-13/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Safalero Srl v Prefetto di Genova (Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Effective judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community legal order — Permissibility of administrative penalties under national legislation — Application to set aside a seizure measure against a third party)

C 264/6                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              1.11.2003
the interpretation of Articles 2 EC, 28 EC, 29 EC, 31 EC and                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
49 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                                                (Sixth Chamber)
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                                     of 11 September 2003
1.     Games of chance and gambling constitute economic activities             in Case C-13/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
       within the meaning of Article 2 EC.                                     the Giudice di pace di Genova): Safalero Srl v Prefetto di
                                                                                                            Genova (1)
2.     The activity of operating gaming machines must, irrespective of         (Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommuni-
       whether or not it is separable from activities relating to the          cations terminal equipment — Effective judicial protection
       manufacture, importation and distribution of such machines,             of rights conferred by the Community legal order — Per-
       be considered a service within the meaning of the Treaty and,           missibility of administrative penalties under national legis-
       accordingly, it cannot come within the scope of Articles 28 EC          lation — Application to set aside a seizure measure against
       and 29 EC relating to the free movement of goods.                                                   a third party)
3.     A monopoly in the operation of games of chance or gambling                                        (2003/C 264/09)
       does not fall within the scope of Article 31 EC.
                                                                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
4.     National legislation such as the Portuguese legislation which
       authorises the operation and playing of games of chance or
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       gambling solely in casinos in permanent or temporary gaming
                                                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
       areas created by decree-law and which is applicable without
       distinction to its own nationals and nationals of other Member
       States constitutes a barrier to the freedom to provide services.
       However, Articles 49 EC et seq. do not preclude such national
       legislation, in view of the concerns of social policy and the
       prevention of fraud which justify it.                                   In Case C-13/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty by the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy) for a
                                                                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                               court between Safalero Srl and Prefetto di Genova, on the
5.     The fact that there might exist, in other Member States,                interpretation of the principles of proportionality, effectiveness
       legislation laying down conditions for the operation and playing        and judicial protection of rights conferred by the Community
       of games of chance or gambling which are less restrictive than          legal order, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
       those provided for by the Portuguese legislation has no bearing         J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
       on the compatibility of the latter with Community law.                  C. Gulmann, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporte-
                                                                               ur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                               on 11 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
6.     In the context of legislation which is compatible with the EC
       Treaty, the choice of methods for organising and controlling the
       operation and playing of games of chance or gambling, such as
       the conclusion with the State of an administrative licensing            The principle of effective judicial protection of the rights which the
       contract or the restriction of the operation and playing of certain     Community legal order confers on individuals is to be construed, in
       games to places duly licensed for that purpose, falls within the        circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as not precluding
       margin of discretion which the national authorities enjoy.              national legislation under which an importer cannot bring court
                                                                               proceedings to challenge a measure adopted by the public authorities
                                                                               under which goods sold to a retailer are seized, where there is available
                                                                               to that importer a legal remedy which ensures respect for the rights
                                                                               conferred on him by Community law.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.