26.6.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/11

(Case C-166/17)

(2017/C 202/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

Respondents: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

Questions referred

1.Does the concession granted to the casinos by [Decree-Law No 422/89 of 2 December 1989 (the Gaming Law)] amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty?

2.Does the exclusive right granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa by Decree-Law No 322/91 of 26 August 1991, as amended by Decree-Law No 469/99 of 6 November 1999, by Decree No 12790 of 30 November 1926, by Decree-Law No 40397 of 24 November 1955, by Decree-Law No 84/85 of 28 March 1985, as amended and [republished] by Decree-Law No 317/2002 of 17 December 2002 and Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty?

3.Does Article 21 of the Código da Publicidade (Advertising Code) infringe the principles of freedom establishment and freedom to provide services, resulting also in discrimination between nationals of Member States, because the prohibitions, restrictions and privileges are not justified?

4.Do [those prohibitions, restrictions and privileges] amount to an instance of arbitrary discrimination and a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, since they are not justified by any general interest?

5.Does the exclusive right … granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa in relation to advertising constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Community law?

6.Are Articles 3 and 9 of [the Gaming Law] compatible with Community law?

7.Are Articles 2 and 3 of Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003 compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the European Union, in so far as they grant an exclusive right to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa to operate online gaming?

8.The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in [the Gaming Law]. Therefore, should such provisions be unenforceable and can individuals invoke that lack of enforceability?

9.The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003. Therefore, are those provisions unenforceable as regards service providers in Portugal?