- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-176/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd v Bundesminister für Finanzen (Article 56 TFEU — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not equivalent to that ensured at national level — Justification — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CA0176
62011CA0176
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
22.9.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 287/13
(Case C-176/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Article 56 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not equivalent to that ensured at national level - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality)
2012/C 287/21
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd
Defendant: Bundesminister für Finanzen
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verfassungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU et seq. — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting the advertising in its territory of casinos located in other States if the level of legal protection for gamblers in those States is not considered equivalent to the level of protection ensured at national level
Operative part of the judgment
Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the advertising in that State of casinos located in another Member State only where the legal provisions for the protection of gamblers adopted in that other Member State provide guarantees that are in essence equivalent to those of the corresponding legal provisions in force in the first Member State.
*
Language of the case: German.