{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-36-02", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-36-02)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-13", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:a03983", "proof": "sha256:411042a070334253456bb3b4ccd4383a93b1967d87f3c72edeffb7eb2e221825", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-36-02", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Arrêt de la Cour", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Case C-36/02", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)", "paragraphs": [ "para_7" ] }, { "title": "Summary of the Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_9" ] }, { "title": "(Arts 46 EC and 49 EC)", "paragraphs": [ "para_11" ] }, { "title": "(Arts 46 EC and 49 EC)", "paragraphs": [ "para_13" ] }, { "title": "(see paras 36-38)", "paragraphs": [ "para_15", "para_16" ] }, { "title": "(see paras 34-35, 39-41, operative part)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)\n14 October 2004 (1)", "paragraphs": [ "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [ "para_36" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [ "para_38" ] }, { "title": "Facts, main proceedings and question referred", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [ "para_41" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [ "para_43" ] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [ "para_45" ] }, { "title": "6", "paragraphs": [ "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "7", "paragraphs": [ "para_50" ] }, { "title": "8", "paragraphs": [ "para_52" ] }, { "title": "9", "paragraphs": [ "para_54" ] }, { "title": "10", "paragraphs": [ "para_56" ] }, { "title": "11", "paragraphs": [ "para_58" ] }, { "title": "12", "paragraphs": [ "para_60" ] }, { "title": "13", "paragraphs": [ "para_62" ] }, { "title": "14", "paragraphs": [ "para_64" ] }, { "title": "15", "paragraphs": [ "para_66" ] }, { "title": "16", "paragraphs": [ "para_68" ] }, { "title": "17", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "Admissibility of the question referred", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "18", "paragraphs": [ "para_74" ] }, { "title": "19", "paragraphs": [ "para_76" ] }, { "title": "20", "paragraphs": [ "para_78" ] }, { "title": "21", "paragraphs": [ "para_80" ] }, { "title": "22", "paragraphs": [ "para_82" ] }, { "title": "The question referred", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "23", "paragraphs": [ "para_85" ] }, { "title": "24", "paragraphs": [ "para_87" ] }, { "title": "25", "paragraphs": [ "para_89" ] }, { "title": "26", "paragraphs": [ "para_91" ] }, { "title": "27", "paragraphs": [ "para_93" ] }, { "title": "28", "paragraphs": [ "para_95" ] }, { "title": "29", "paragraphs": [ "para_97" ] }, { "title": "30", "paragraphs": [ "para_99" ] }, { "title": "31", "paragraphs": [ "para_101" ] }, { "title": "32", "paragraphs": [ "para_103" ] }, { "title": "33", "paragraphs": [ "para_105" ] }, { "title": "34", "paragraphs": [ "para_107" ] }, { "title": "35", "paragraphs": [ "para_109" ] }, { "title": "36", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "37", "paragraphs": [ "para_113" ] }, { "title": "38", "paragraphs": [ "para_115" ] }, { "title": "39", "paragraphs": [ "para_117" ] }, { "title": "40", "paragraphs": [ "para_119" ] }, { "title": "41", "paragraphs": [ "para_121" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "42", "paragraphs": [ "para_124" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "1 –", "paragraphs": [ "para_129" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Arrêt de la Cour", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Case C-36/02", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "(Freedom to provide services – Free movement of goods – Restrictions – Public policy – Human dignity – Protection of fundamental values laid down by the national constitution – ‘Playing at killing’)", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Summary of the Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "1. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Justification on grounds of public policy – Need for and proportionality of the\n measures – Existence of different systems of protection in other Member States – Not relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "(Arts 46 EC and 49 EC)", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation prohibiting the commercial exploitation of games simulating\n acts of homicide – Justification – Protection of public policy – Respect for human dignity as a general principle of law", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "(Arts 46 EC and 49 EC)", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "1. Whilst measures which restrict the freedom to provide services may be justified on public policy grounds only if they are\n necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives\n cannot be attained by less restrictive measures, it …", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "(see paras 36-38)", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "2. Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of\n homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason\n of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "That measure cannot be regarded as one imposing an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services. In the first\n place, the protection of fundamental rights, it being stated that the Community legal order undeniably strives to ensure respect\n for human dignity as a general principle of l …", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "(see paras 34-35, 39-41, operative part)", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)\n14 October 2004 (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "(Freedom to provide services – Free movement of goods – Restrictions – Public policy – Human dignity – Protection of fundamental values laid down in the national constitution – ‘Playing at killing’)", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "In Case C-36/02,REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC,from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 24 October 2001, received at the Court on 12 February 2002, in proceedings between:", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "THE COURT (First Chamber),,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr,\n Judges, and", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,\nRegistrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator,", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 February 2004,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "–\n Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH, by P. Tuxhorn, Rechtsanwalt,", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "–\n Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, by F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt,", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "–\n the German Government, by W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent,", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "–\n the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Patakia and C. Schmidt, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 March 2004,", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 49 to 55 EC on the freedom to provide services\n and Articles 28 to 30 EC on the free movement of goods.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "The question referred to the Court of Justice by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany) was\n raised in an appeal on a point of law before that court by Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH (‘Omega’), in\n which that company challenged the compatibility with Community law of a prohibition order issued against it by the Oberbürgermeisterin\n der Bundesstadt Bonn (‘the Bonn police authority’) on 14 September 1994.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Facts, main proceedings and question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Omega, a German company, had, since 1 August 1994, been operating an installation known as a ‘laserdrome’, normally used for\n the practice of ‘laser sport’ in Bonn (Germany). The installation continued to be used after 14 September 1994, Omega having\n obtained authorisation to continue its use on a …", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Even before the public opening of the ‘laserdrome’, a part of the population manifested its opposition to the project. At\n the beginning of 1994, the Bonn police authority ordered Omega to supply it with a precise description of the working of the\n game intended in the ‘laserdrome’ and, by letter of …", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Having noticed that the object of the game played in the ‘laserdrome’ also included hitting sensory tags placed on the jackets\n worn by players, the Bonn police authority issued an order against Omega on 14 September 1994, forbidding it from ‘facilitating\n or allowing in its […] establishment games …", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "That order was issued under powers conferred by Paragraph 14(1) of the Ordnungsbehördengesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen (Law governing\n the North Rhine-Westphalia Police authorities; ‘the OBG NW’), which provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "‘The police authorities may take measures necessary to avert a risk to public order or safety in an individual case’.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "According to the prohibition order of 14 September 1994, the games which took place in Omega’s establishment constituted a\n danger to public order, since the acts of simulated homicide and the trivialisation of violence thereby engendered were contary\n to fundamental values prevailing in public opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Omega’s objection against that order was rejected by the Bezirksregierung Köln (Cologne District Authority) on 6 November\n 1995. By judgement of 3 September 1998, the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Cologne Administrative Court) dismissed the ensuing court\n action. Omega’s appeal was also dismissed, on 27 September 2000, by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen\n (Higher Administrative Court for the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia) (Germany).", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Omega then appealed on a point of law to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court). In support of its appeal,\n it argued, amongst numerous other pleas, that the contested order infringed Community law, particularly the freedom to provide\n services under Article 49 EC, since its ‘laserdrome’ had to use equipment and technology supplied by the British company Pulsar.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "The Bundesverwaltungsgericht takes the view that, under national law, Omega’s appeal must be dismissed. It is, however, uncertain\n whether that result is compatible with Community law, particularly Articles 49 to 55 EC on the freedom to provide services\n and Articles 28 to 30 EC on the free movement of goods.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "According to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, the Oberverwaltungsgericht was right to hold that the commercial exploitation of\n a ‘killing game’ in Omega’s ‘laserdrome’ constituted an affront to human dignity, a concept established in the first sentence\n of Paragraph 1(1) of the German Basic (Constitutional) Law.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "The referring court states that human dignity is a constitutional principle which may be infringed either by the degrading\n treatment of an adversary, which is not the case here, or by the awakening or strengthening in the player of an attitude denying\n the fundamental right of each person to be ack …", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Concerning the application of Community law, the referring court considers that the contested order infringes the freedom\n to provide services under Article 49 EC. Omega concluded a franchising agreement with a British company, which is being prevented\n from providing services to its German customer …", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "The national court considers that the case in the main proceedings gives an opportunity to spell out in greater detail the\n conditions which Community law places on the restriction of a certain category of supplies of services or the importation\n of certain goods. It point out that, under the case-l …", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "The national court queries, however, whether, in the light of the judgment in Case C-275/92 Schindler [1994] ECR I-1039, a common legal conception in all Member States is a precondition for one of those States being enabled\n to restrict at its discretion a certain category of provisions of goods or …", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "It states that the judgments in Läärä and Zenatti , delivered after Schindler , could give the impression that the Court of Justice no longer adheres strictly to the need for a common conception of law\n in order to restrict the freedom to provide services. If that were the case, it argues, Community …", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following question to the\n Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "‘Is it compatible with the provisions on freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods contained in the Treaty\n establishing the European Community for a particular commercial activity – in this case the operation of a so-called “laserdrome”\n involving simulated killing action – to be prohibited under national law because it offends against the values enshrined in\n the constitution?’", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "Admissibility of the question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "The Bonn police authority questions the admissibility of the question referred and, more particularly, the applicability of\n the rules of Community law on fundamental freedoms in this dispute. In its view, the prohibition order of 14 September 1994\n has not affected any operation of a cross-border n …", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "It should, however, be recalled that, according to settled case-law, it is solely for the national courts before which actions\n are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the\n special features of each case both the need for …", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Moreover, it also follows from that case-law that the Court can refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling\n by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation\n to the actual facts of the main action or its …", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "That is not the case here. Even if the documents before the Court show that, at the time the order was adopted on 14 September\n 1994, Omega had not yet formally concluded supply or franchising agreements with the company established in the United Kingdom,\n it is sufficient to note that, having regar …", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "The question referred by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht must therefore be declared admissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "The question referred", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "By its question, the referring court asks, first, whether the prohibition of an economic activity for reasons arising from\n the protection of fundamental values laid down by the national constitution, such as, in this case, human dignity, is compatible\n with Community law, and, second, whether the a …", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "As a preliminary issue, it needs to be determined to what extent the restriction which the referring court has found to exist\n is capable of affecting the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods, which are governed by different Treaty\n provisions.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "In that respect, this Court finds that the contested order, by prohibiting Omega from operating its ‘laserdrome’ in accordance\n with the form of the game developed by Pulsar and lawfully marketed by it in the United Kingdom, particularly under the franchising\n system, affects the freedom to provide …", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "However, where a national measure affects both the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods, the Court will,\n in principle, examine it in relation to just one of those two fundamental freedoms if it is clear that, in the circumstances\n of the case, one of those freedoms is entirely …", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "In the circumstances of this case, the aspect of the freedom to provide services prevails over that of the free movement of\n goods. The Bonn police authority and the Commission of the European Communities have rightly pointed out that the contested\n order restricts the importation of goods only as r …", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Concerning justification for the restriction of the freedom to provide services imposed by the order of 14 September 1994,\n Article 46 EC, which applies here by virtue of Article 55 EC, allows restrictions justified for reasons of public policy,\n public security or public health. In this case, the d …", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "In these proceedings, it is undisputed that the contested order was adopted independently of any consideration linked to the\n nationality of the providers or recipients of the services placed under a restriction. In any event, since measures for safeguarding\n public policy fall within a derogation f …", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "However, the possibility of a Member State relying on a derogation laid down by the Treaty does not prevent judicial review\n of measures applying that derogation (Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, paragraph 7). In addition, the concept of ‘public policy’ in the Community context, particularly as …", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "The fact remains, however, that the specific circumstances which may justify recourse to the concept of public policy may\n vary from one country to another and from one era to another. The competent national authorities must therefore be allowed\n a margin of discretion within the limits imposed by the Treaty ( Van Duyn , paragraph 18, and Bouchereau , paragraph 34).", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "In this case, the competent authorities took the view that the activity concerned by the prohibition order was a threat to\n public policy by reason of the fact that, in accordance with the conception prevailing in public opinion, the commercial exploitation\n of games involving the simulated killing …", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "It should be recalled in that context that, according to settled case-law, fundamental rights form an integral part of the\n general principles of law the observance of which the Court ensures, and that, for that purpose, the Court draws inspiration\n from the constitutional traditions common to the M …", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "As the Advocate General argues in paragraphs 82 to 91 of her Opinion, the Community legal order undeniably strives to ensure\n respect for human dignity as a general principle of law. There can therefore be no doubt that the objective of protecting\n human dignity is compatible with Community law, it being immaterial in that respect that, in Germany, the principle of respect\n for human dignity has a particular status as an independent fundamental right.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Since both the Community and its Member States are required to respect fundamental rights, the protection of those rights\n is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by Community law, even under\n a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom to provide services (see, in relation to the free movement\n of goods, Schmidberger , paragraph 74).", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "However, measures which restrict the freedom to provide services may be justified on public policy grounds only if they are\n necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives\n cannot be attained by less restrictive measures (see, in relation to the free movement of capital, Église de Scientologie , paragraph 18).", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "It is not indispensable in that respect for the restrictive measure issued by the authorities of a Member State to correspond\n to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest\n in question is to be protected. Although, in pa …", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "On the contrary, as is apparent from well-established case-law subsequent to Schindler , the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions adopted are not excluded merely because one Member State has chosen\n a system of protection different from that adopted by another State (see, to that effect, Läärä , paragraph 36; Zenatti , paragraph 34; Case C-6/01 Anomar and Others [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 80).", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "In this case, it should be noted, first, that, according to the referring court, the prohibition on the commercial exploitation\n of games involving the simulation of acts of violence against persons, in particular the representation of acts of homicide,\n corresponds to the level of protection of hum …", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the order of 14 September 1994 cannot be regarded as a measure unjustifiably undermining the freedom\n to provide services.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "41", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the question must be that Community law does not preclude an economic\n activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide from being made subject to a national\n prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that activity is an affront\n to human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "42", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,\n the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs\n of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of\n homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason\n of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Signatures.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "1 –", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "Language of the case: German.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" } ], "word_count": 4425, "cites": [ "C-124/97", "C-67/98", "C-275/92", "C-379/98", "C-390/99", "C-373/00", "C-18/01", "C-476/01", "C-71/02", "C-54/99", "C-260/89", "C-274/99", "C-94/00", "C-112/00", "C-6/01" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "f22cf2580421866da023c85ca90ce7fa523fe92c35dc06aa7ad917c56d067850", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62002CJ0036", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T12:54:56.885+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-36-02", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-36-02", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-36-02", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-36-02" }, "hash": "sha256:411042a070334253456bb3b4ccd4383a93b1967d87f3c72edeffb7eb2e221825", "version": "legal-2026-10-13", "expires": "2026-10-14T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T12:55:18", "content_hash": "sha256:411042a070334253456bb3b4ccd4383a93b1967d87f3c72edeffb7eb2e221825", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-13T14:23:04.372Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-36-02", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-36-02" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-36-02" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-36-02" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }