- 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-55/08: Order of the Court of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)) — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CB0055
62008CB0055
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
22.5.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 134/9
(Case C-55/08) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
2010/C 134/14
Language of the case: Portuguese
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
Defendant: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC — National legislation reserving to a particular body the exclusive right to operate games of chance and pool betting and penalising the activity of organising, promoting and collecting (including by Internet) of bets on sporting events — Prohibition on an undertaking based in another Member State operating on line gambling and pool betting from promoting organising and operating such gambling and pool betting by Internet and making the value of the prizes available to winners
Operative part of the order
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal), by decision of 19 December 2007, is manifestly inadmissible.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.