CELEX: 62012CN0390
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-390/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2012 — 1. Robert Pfleger and Others

10.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/6
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 20 August 2012 — 1. Robert Pfleger and Others
   (Case C-390/12)
   2012/C 343/07
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Robert Pfleger, Autoart a.s., Mladen Vucicevic, Maroxx Software GmbH, Hans-Jörg Zehetner
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 56 TFEU and in Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national legislation like the relevant provisions in the main proceedings, Paragraphs 3 to 5 and Paragraphs 14 and 21 of the GSpG, which permits the organisation of games of chance using machines only on the condition — which may be enforced by both criminal penalties and direct intervention — of the prior issue of a licence, which is available only in limited numbers, even though — as far as can be seen — the State has not shown thus far in a single judicial or administrative procedure that associated crime and/or addiction to gambling actually constitute a significant problem which cannot be remedied by a controlled expansion of authorised gaming activities to a large number of individual providers, but only by a controlled expansion, coupled with only moderate advertising, by one monopoly holder (or a small number of oligopolists)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the event that the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 56 TFEU and in Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national legislation like Paragraphs 52 to 54 of the GSpG, Paragraph 56a of the GSpG and Paragraph 168 of the StGB by which, as a result of imprecise legal definitions, there is almost complete criminal liability, even for various forms of only very remotely involved (possibly resident in other European Union Member States) persons (such as the mere sellers or lessors of gaming machines)?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the event that the second question is also to be answered in the negative: Do the requirements relating to democracy and the rule of law on which Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is clearly based and/or the requirement of fairness and efficiency under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or the obligation of transparency under Article 56 TFEU and/or the right not to be tried or punished twice under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national rules like Paragraphs 52 to 54 of the GSpG, Paragraph 56a of the GSpG and Paragraph 168 of the StGB, the delimitation between which is not really foreseeable or predictable ex ante for a citizen, in the absence of clear legislative provision, and can be clarified in each specific case only through an expensive formal procedure, but which are associated with extensive differences in terms of competences (administrative authority or court), powers of intervention, the connected stigmatisation in each case and procedural position (e.g. reversal of the burden of proof)?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the event that one of the first three questions is to be answered in the affirmative: Does Article 56 TFEU and/or Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude the punishment of persons who have one of the close connections with a gaming machine mentioned in Paragraph 2(1)(1) and Paragraph 2(2) of the GSpG and/or the seizure or confiscation of such machines and/or the closure of the entire undertaking owned by such persons?