Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn
A Member State can restrict the freedom to provide services to protect human dignity, as understood in its own constitution, even if other Member States take a different view.
Facts
Omega ran a laserdrome in Bonn, where players used laser guns to shoot at each other, simulating killing. The equipment was supplied by a British company. The Bonn police authority prohibited the game, because simulating the killing of human beings was contrary to human dignity, which is protected by the German Constitution. Omega argued that the prohibition was contrary to the freedom to provide services.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the prohibition was justified on grounds of public policy. The protection of fundamental rights is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by EU law, and it is not indispensable for the restrictive measure to correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest in question is to be protected. The prohibition reflected the level of protection of human dignity in the German Constitution, and it was proportionate.
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
- HM Customs and Excise v Schindler Case C-275/92, [1994] ECR I-1039
- 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
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.
