HM Customs and Excise v Schindler
A national ban on large lotteries restricted the freedom to provide services, but was justified by social policy concerns, such as preventing fraud and the risk of crime.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Schindler were independent agents for a German public lottery. They sent advertisements and application forms for the lottery from the Netherlands to people in the United Kingdom, where large lotteries were then prohibited. The letters were confiscated by customs officers. The Schindlers argued that the ban was contrary to the freedom to provide services.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the importation of lottery advertisements and tickets was a provision of services, and that the ban was a restriction on the freedom to provide services. However, it was justified by considerations of social policy and the prevention of fraud, given the peculiar nature of lotteries, the moral, religious and cultural aspects of gambling, the risk of crime and fraud, and the fact that lotteries can be an incitement to spend which may have damaging individual and social consequences. National authorities have a sufficient degree of latitude to determine what is required to protect the players and society.
Related cases on freedom of establishment and services
- Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën Case C-384/93, [1995] ECR I-1141
- Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-60/00, [2002] ECR I-6279
- Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt Case C-210/06, [2008] ECR I-9641
- Centros Ltd v Erhvervs og Selskabsstyrelsen Case C-212/97, [1999] ECR I-1459
- Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano Case C-55/94, [1995] ECR I-4165
- International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP Case C-438/05, [2007] ECR I-10779
- Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd Case C-167/01, [2003] ECR I-10155
- Kohll v Union des Caisses de Maladie Case C-158/96, [1998] ECR I-1931
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
