## Facts

- Omega, a German operator of amusement arcades, planned to run a “laserdrome” game in which participants shot laser guns at other players wearing body sensors.
- The laser-game equipment and related services were supplied and installed by a United Kingdom company and were lawfully marketed there.
- The Bonn police authority prohibited operation of the laserdrome under North Rhine–Westphalia public-order law, characterizing the activity as “playing at killing” and as trivializing violence against humans.
- German administrative courts upheld the prohibition on the basis that the game offended the constitutional protection of human dignity by encouraging attitudes denying the equal respect owed to each person.
- The German Federal Administrative Court referred questions to the Court of Justice on whether the prohibition was compatible with EU free-movement rules, given the cross-border service element and lawful marketing in another Member State.

## Issues

1. Whether a prohibition on commercially operating a laser game simulating acts of homicide restricts the EU freedom to provide services (and, incidentally, the free movement of goods).
2. Whether protection of human dignity can constitute a public-policy justification for restricting the freedom to provide services, even if similar activities are permitted in other Member States.
3. Whether EU law requires that such a restriction reflect a conception shared by all Member States, and whether the prohibition was necessary and proportionate.

## Decision

- The Court held that the prohibition restricted the freedom to provide services by preventing the cross-border provision and use of the UK-supplied system for its intended commercial purpose.
- The restriction was capable of justification on public-policy grounds because respect for human dignity is protected as a fundamental value and a general principle of EU law.
- EU law did not require Germany’s measure to match the level or method of protection chosen by other Member States.
- The prohibition was proportionate because it targeted the specific game format in which players directly targeted other humans (“playing at killing”), rather than imposing a general ban on laser games or the equipment itself.
- Accordingly, EU law did not preclude the national prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on the freedom to provide services may be justified on public-policy grounds only where there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society and the measure is necessary and proportionate.
- Protection of fundamental rights, including human dignity, is a legitimate public-policy interest that can justify limiting EU market freedoms.
- A Member State may choose a higher or different level of protection of a fundamental interest than that chosen elsewhere in the EU; a lack of uniformity among Member States does not by itself defeat justification or proportionality.
- Proportionality is supported where a measure is confined to the harmful configuration of an activity and does not extend beyond what is needed to secure the chosen level of protection.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Germany’s targeted ban on a laserdrome game simulating homicide against other players, concluding that the resulting restriction on cross-border services was justified and proportionate to protect human dignity as a public-policy interest recognized within EU law.


Omega Spielhallen- & Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (Omega), Case C-36/02, 2004 E.C.R. I-9609 (E.C.J. 2004)