Omega Spielhallen GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) [2004] ECR I-9609

Facts

  • Omega Spielhallen operated a commercial laser game in Bonn, Germany, importing equipment from the United Kingdom.
  • German authorities prohibited the operation on the basis that simulating the killing of human beings, even for recreation, violated the fundamental principle of human dignity under the German Basic Law.
  • The prohibition resulted in legal proceedings and a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Issues

  1. Whether national authorities could lawfully restrict the freedom to provide services by prohibiting games simulating killing, on the grounds of protecting human dignity.
  2. Whether such a restriction was compatible with the principles of the internal market as set out in Articles 56 and 52 TFEU.
  3. Whether the measure imposed was suitable, necessary, and proportionate to the objective pursued.

Decision

  • The ECJ recognized the fundamental importance of the freedom to provide services within the EU internal market.
  • The Court held that Member States may restrict this freedom on public policy grounds, including the protection of human dignity.
  • The ECJ deferred to the Member State's assessment of threats to public policy in the context of human dignity, within the constraints of EU law.
  • The Court found the German prohibition suitable for protecting human dignity, as perceived under German law.
  • The measure was found necessary and proportionate, as less restrictive alternatives were unavailable.
  • The ECJ concluded that the restriction was justified under EU law.

Legal Principles

  • Member States are permitted to restrict the freedom to provide services for reasons of public policy, including the protection of fundamental rights such as human dignity.
  • The concept of human dignity holds a prominent place in the constitutional traditions of Member States and is recognized in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
  • Such national restrictions must be justified, necessary, and proportionate to the objective pursued.
  • The margin of appreciation allows Member States to determine how to protect fundamental values, provided the measures comply with EU law.
  • The assessment must strike a balance between economic freedoms and the protection of societal values.

Conclusion

The ECJ held that Member States may lawfully restrict the free movement of services to protect human dignity, provided such measures are justified and proportionate within the framework of EU law, affirming the role of national constitutional traditions in shaping public policy exceptions to internal market freedoms.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal