Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Bonn
European Union Court of Justice
Case C-36/02, I-9609 (2004)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH (Omega) (plaintiff) was a German corporation that operated a facility used for laser sporting games. One of the activities offered by Omega involved players wearing sensors on their jackets that were targets for other players to hit with laser guns. The equipment used for the games was provided and installed by Pulsar, a British company with which Omega had entered into a franchising relationship. The equipment developed by Pulsar was lawfully marketed in the United Kingdom (UK). The police determined that the activity amounted to playing at killing and prohibited any games that involved firing at human targets with laser beams because such games trivialized violence against humans and, therefore, constituted a danger to the public order. Omega argued that because Pulsar was a British company that provided a service in Germany, prohibiting the laser games violated community legislation. The German court, noting that the prohibition corresponded to the level of protection for human dignity guaranteed in Germany, requested a preliminary ruling on whether the prohibition was compatible with community legislation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.