Ddating personals direct 518 txt 518
References for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Gießen and Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart - Germany. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 8 December 2009, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – Mr Stoß, Mr Kunert and Avalon Service‑Online‑Dienste Gmb H, by R. Ruttig, Rechtsanwalt, – the German Government, by M. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent, – the French Government, by G. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agent, – the Finnish Government, by J. Moen, acting as Agents, – the European Commission, by E. 2 The references were made in the context of disputes between, first, Mr Stoß, Avalon Service-Online-Dienste Gmb H (‘Avalon’) and Mr Happel, of the one part, and the Wetteraukreis, of the other part; and, secondly, between Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg Gmb H (‘Kulpa’), SOBO Sport & Entertainment Gmb H (‘SOBO’) and Mr Kunert, of the one part, and the Land Baden‑Württemberg, of the other part, concerning decisions by those two authorities prohibiting the persons concerned, on pain of a fine, from carrying on any business seeking to allow or facilitate the conclusion of bets on sporting competitions organised by providers established in Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010. 5 Paragraph 1(1) of the RWLG provides: ‘An association wishing to operate a mutual betting undertaking on horse races or other public horse competitions must first obtain the authorisation of the competent authorities in accordance with the law of the Land.’ 6 Paragraph 2(1) of the RWLG provides: ‘Any person wishing, on a commercial basis, to conclude bets on public horse competitions or serve as intermediary for such bets (Bookmaker) must first obtain the authorisation of the competent authorities in accordance with the law of the Land.’ The Lott St V 7 By the State treaty concerning lotteries in Germany (Staatsvertrag zum Lotteriewesen in Deutschland; ‘the Lott St V’), which entered into force on 1 July 2004, the Länder created a uniform framework for the organisation, operation and commercial placing of gambling, apart from casinos.(2) Are Articles 43 [EC] and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State bodies specifically designated for that purpose by the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts also in other Member States without any additional national authorisations being required?’ Cases C‑358/07 to C‑360/07 28 SOBO, Mr Kunert and Allegro Gmb H (‘Allegro’) each have commercial premises in Stuttgart (Germany).(see paras 111-113, 116, operative part 2) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 8 September 2010 (*) (Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Organisation of bets on sporting competitions subject to a public monopoly at Land level – Objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating gambling addiction – Proportionality – Restrictive measure to be genuinely aimed at reducing opportunities for gambling and limiting gambling activities in a consistent and systematic manner – Advertising emanating from the holder of the monopoly and encouraging participation in lotteries – Other games of chance capable of being offered by private operators – Expansion of the supply of other games of chance – Licence issued in another Member State – No mutual recognition obligation) In Joined Cases C‑316/07, C‑358/07 to C‑360/07, C‑409/07 and C‑410/07, REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) (C‑316/07, C‑409/07 and C‑410/07) and the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) (C‑358/07 to C‑360/07), made by decisions of 7 May (C‑316/07), 24 July (C‑358/07 to C‑360/07) and 28 August 2007 (C‑409/07 and C‑410/07), received at the Court on, respectively, 9 July, 2 August and 3 September 2007, in the proceedings Markus Stoß (C‑316/07), Avalon Service‑Online‑Dienste Gmb H (C‑409/07), Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel (C‑410/07) v Wetteraukreis, and Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg Gmb H (C‑358/07), SOBO Sport & Entertainment Gmb H (C‑359/07), Andreas Kunert (C‑360/07) v Land Baden‑Württemberg, THE COURT (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Nor had they applied for such authorisation or sought clarification of the law by means of a legal action. Arena, avvocati dello Stato, – the Lithuanian Government, by D.