11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

(Case C-255/16)

(2016/C 251/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendants: Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Questions referred

Does this case involve a rule that must be notified under Article 8(1), cf. Article 1, first paragraph, (2), (5), and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, assuming the following:

(a)amending legislation is to be introduced amending the Law on certain gaming, lotteries and betting (lov om visse spil, lotterier og væddemål), under which a provision is to be introduced on sentencing inter alia for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘offers gaming, lotteries or betting in Denmark without holding a licence pursuant to Paragraph 1’, and for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘advertises gaming, lotteries or betting not covered by a licence under Paragraph 1’, and

(b)the remarks on the draft amending legislation indicate that the purpose of the abovementioned sentencing provisions is to clarify or introduce a prohibition on gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark and directly targeting the Danish market, partly by prohibiting advertising for, inter alia, gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark, inasmuch as the same remarks it is stated that there is no doubt that, under the rules prevailing before the amendments, gaming measures are unlawful if a gaming company outside Denmark makes use of sales channels in which the gaming device is actually physically sold within the borders of Denmark; there is, however, greater doubt as to whether gaming from outside Denmark aimed at gaming participants in Denmark but actually physically situated outside Denmark is also covered by the provision; and it is therefore necessary to have clarified whether those forms of gaming are covered. It is further apparent from the remarks that it is suggested to introduce an advertising ban on gaming, lotteries and betting which are not licensed under that law, and that the amendment complies with the current prohibition in Paragraph 12(3) of the Law on horserace betting (hestevæddeløbsloven) but is a clarification of Paragraph 10(4) of the [now repealed] Law on betting and lotteries (Tips- og lottoloven). The remarks further state that the purpose of the prohibition is to protect gaming providers holding a licence from the Danish authorities against competition from companies that do not hold such a licence and who therefore cannot lawfully offer or broker gaming in Denmark.

Language of the case: Danish

(1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.