Falbert and Others (Approximation of laws Approximation of laws) [2017] EUECJ C-255/16 (20 December 2017)

Falbert and Others (Approximation of laws Approximation of laws) [2017] EUECJ C-255/16 (20 December 2017)

A national provision imposing criminal sanctions for unauthorised gaming does not constitute a technical regulation requiring notification under Directive 98/34. However, a provision imposing sanctions for advertising unauthorised gaming, where its object and purpose is to extend a prohibition to online gaming services, does constitute a technical regulation requiring notification, as determined by the national court based on the travaux préparatoires.

Citation
[2017] EUECJ C-255/16
Parties
Defendant: Bent Falbert; Defendant: Poul Madsen; Defendant: JP/Politikens Hus A/S
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling / Reference for Preliminary Ruling From National Court
Outcome
Partial interpretation granted
Legal Topics
Technical Regulations, Notification Obligation, Information Society Services, Advertising of Gaming Services
European Union Law Criminal Law Technical Regulations Notification Obligation Information Society Services Advertising of Gaming Services

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bent Falbert

Defendant

Poul Madsen

Defendant

JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling / Reference for Preliminary Ruling From National Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether national provisions imposing sanctions for unauthorised gaming and advertising constitute 'technical regulations' under Directive 98/34 and require notification to the Commission

Ratio Decidendi

A national provision imposing criminal sanctions for unauthorised gaming does not constitute a technical regulation requiring notification under Directive 98/34. However, a provision imposing sanctions for advertising unauthorised gaming, where its object and purpose is to extend a prohibition to online gaming services, does constitute a technical regulation requiring notification, as determined by the national court based on the travaux préparatoires.

Court Disposition

Partial interpretation granted

Orders

  • Article 1 of Directive 98/34 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision imposing criminal sanctions for unauthorised gaming does not constitute a technical regulation requiring notification under Article 8(1).
  • A national provision imposing sanctions for advertising unauthorised gaming, lotteries or betting, where its object and purpose is to extend a prohibition to online gaming services, does constitute a technical regulation requiring notification under Article 8(1), subject to determination by the national court.