## Facts

- Unibet, an online gambling operator, challenged Swedish gambling legislation restricting gambling advertising.
- Unibet claimed that the Swedish law conflicted with EU principles, specifically the free movement of services under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU.
- The Swedish legislation was designed to protect consumers and maintain public order in the gambling sector.
- Unibet brought an indirect challenge in Swedish courts instead of a direct action, seeking national judicial review of measures allegedly incompatible with EU law.

## Issues

1. Whether national courts are obligated to interpret national law in conformity with EU law when faced with alleged conflicts.
2. Under what circumstances national courts must refer questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.
3. Whether Member States' gambling regulations unlawfully restrict the free movement of services as protected by TFEU.

## Decision

- The CJEU reiterated that national courts must, as far as possible, interpret national law consistently with EU law.
- The Court confirmed that where conform interpretation is not possible due to restrictive national frameworks, recourse must be made to the preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU.
- It was held that while Member States can regulate gambling to protect public interests, such measures must be proportionate and avoid undue restriction on the free movement of services.

## Legal Principles

- Supremacy of EU law renders conflicting national law inapplicable.
- The principle of conform interpretation obliges national courts to interpret national law in line with EU law to the greatest extent possible.
- Article 267 TFEU empowers national courts to seek preliminary rulings from the CJEU on questions of EU law interpretation or validity.
- National measures restricting fundamental freedoms under the TFEU (such as free movement of services) must pursue legitimate objectives and be proportionate.

## Conclusion

The Unibet decision confirms the central role of national courts and the preliminary reference procedure in safeguarding the primacy and uniform application of EU law, requiring that national measures be interpreted or, if impossible, reviewed to ensure compliance with EU fundamental freedoms such as the freedom to provide services.

Unibet v Justitiekanslern (Case C-432/05) [2007] ECR I-2271