I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
—
(C/2025/3081)
Language of the case: German
Applicant: LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) in so far as it lays down, in Article 1(2) thereof, that the scheme applicable to public casinos operators as from 1 January 2024 in the Land Hamburg (Law allowing a public casino, as amended by the Law of 21 December 2023) does not constitute State aid;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
It was found in the contested decision that in order to have the same tax burden on public casinos and gambling halls, the former must also be subject to the obligation to pay the entertainment tax. According to the statement in Article 1(2), the defendant used the so-called ‘Hamburg model’ and found that it removed the tax advantages of German public casinos. That, however, is not the case.
—
Commission Decision (EU) 2025/317 of 20 June 2024 on the measures State Aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2016/FC) and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) – Tax treatment of public casinos operators – and alleged guarantee for public casinos operators (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie) – Germany (OJ. L, 2025/317).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3081/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—