The Curia upheld the final judgement. In the reasoning of its judgement, the Curia stated that the plaintiff had leased out slot machines in Hungary to a company based in Hungary and that there had been no additional information, concerning either the service users or the service provider, from which it could be concluded that the plaintiff had provided cross border services. The mere fact that the plaintiff’s seat was located in a foreign country – in the absence of any other factual element – could not justify the cross border nature of the plaintiff’s provision of services, hence, Article 56 of the TFEU could not be applied in the present case.
(tab ġdida)
