- 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-203/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name Betfair ; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0203
62008CN0203
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
Official Journal of the European Union
JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
(Case C-203/08)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2008 — The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’; other parties: Minister for Justice, Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator and Scientific Games Racing
(2008/C 197/17)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: The Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading under the name ‘Betfair’
Questions referred
1.Should Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that, where a closed licensing system is applied in a Member State to the provision of services relating to games of chance, the application of that article precludes the competent authority of that Member State from prohibiting a service provider to whom a licence has already been granted in another Member State to provide those services via the internet from also offering those services via the internet in the first Member State?
2.Is the interpretation which the Court of Justice has given to Article 49 EC, and in particular to the principle of equality and the duty of transparency arising therefrom, in a number of individual cases concerning concessions applicable to the procedure for the granting of a licence to offer services relating to games of chance under a statutorily established single-licence system?
3.(a). Under a statutorily established single-licence system, can the extension of the licence of the existing licence-holder, without potential applicants being given an opportunity to compete for that licence, be a suitable and proportionate means of meeting the imperative requirements in the general interest which the Court of Justice has recognised as justifying restriction of the freedom to provide services in respect of games of chance? If so, under what conditions?
4.(b). Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 3(a) whether Question 2 is answered in the affirmative or the negative?