- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 19 Mar 2012 · read from the court record
- Court
- Conseil d'État, 7e et 2e sous-sections réunies · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 341562
- Filed
- 2010
- Type
- Operator v. regulator, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- EUR 3,000 costs awarded against Partouche (art. L. 761-1 CJA)
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Partouche lost the 2006 Lille casino tender to Barrière and challenged the contract. The Conseil d'État rejected the pourvoi and fixed the governing rule: casino games are not in themselves a public service, but the agreement a commune must conclude for a casino is a délégation de service public when the operator takes on general-interest missions and is paid substantially from operating results; hotel and entertainment services may be bundled as accessories. Every French casino licensing dispute since is decided on this basis.
What this case is about
SA Groupe Partouche c/ Commune de Lille, no. 341562, is a decision of the Conseil d'État (7e and 2e sous-sections réunies) on the award of the Lille casino contract. It is one of the licensing and administrative court cases on this site.
Groupe Partouche lost the 2006 tender for the Lille casino to Groupe Lucien Barrière and challenged the contract.
The claims rested on articles L. 1411-1 and following of the Code général des collectivités territoriales (délégation de service public) and the law of 15 June 1907 on casinos. The case was filed in 2010. Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique, a Barrière company, intervened for the commune.
Who is covered
The ruling affects French communes that grant casino contracts and the companies that bid for them. It is not a class case, and no players are parties.
The defendants were the Commune de Lille and Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique (Groupe Lucien Barrière, intervener). The wider French record is under gambling lawsuits in France.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a contract and licensing dispute between a bidder and a commune, and the record shows no fund, no settlement and no consumer claim process.
The only money is EUR 3,000 in costs that the Conseil d'État awarded against Partouche under art. L. 761-1 of the Code de justice administrative, payable to Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique.
What the court decided
On 19 March 2012 the Conseil d'État rejected the pourvoi of SA Groupe Partouche. The decision is published in the Recueil Lebon (ECLI:FR:CESSR:2012:341562.20120319).
The Court fixed the governing rule. Casino games are not in themselves a public service. The agreement a commune must conclude for a casino is, however, a délégation de service public when the operator takes on general-interest missions and is paid substantially from operating results. Hotel and entertainment services may be bundled as accessories.
As of 14 November 2026 the case is decided, and the record shows no further step.
Why it matters
The decision is a precedent. According to our record, every French casino licensing dispute since has been decided on this basis.
Later French casino delegation disputes, such as Berck-sur-Mer and La Ciotat, are listed below. Other contests between operators and public bodies sit under licensing and administrative court cases.
Questions people ask
Is a casino contract a public service delegation in France?
Yes, when the operator takes on general-interest missions and is paid substantially from operating results. The Conseil d'État held on 19 March 2012 that casino games themselves are not a public service, but the commune's agreement is a délégation de service public.
Can hotel and entertainment services be bundled with a casino contract?
Yes, as accessories. The Conseil d'État held that hotel and entertainment services may be included in the delegation without changing its qualification.
Who won the Lille casino dispute?
The Commune de Lille and Barrière's Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique. The Court rejected Partouche's pourvoi and ordered EUR 3,000 in costs against Partouche.
Related cases
- Commune de Berck-sur-Mer c/ Société du Grand Casino de Dinant: renewal of a casino delegation and return of assets.
- Groupe Partouche et Société Jean Metz c/ Commune de Berck-sur-Mer: return of the casino in an interim-measures procedure.
- Société du Grand Casino de Dinant c/ Commune de La Ciotat et Pleinair Casino: annulment of a municipal casino delegation.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: SA Groupe Partouche (unsuccessful bidder)
| Defendants | Commune de Lille; Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique (Groupe Lucien Barrière, intervener) |
|---|---|
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows EUR 3,000 costs awarded against Partouche (art. L. 761-1 CJA).
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010 | Filed |
| 19 Mar 2012 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
2 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: conseil-etat.fr
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision published in the Recueil, rejection, DSP qualification | revuegeneraledudroit.eu | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| CE n° 341562, lecture du 19 mars 2012, 7ème et 2ème sous-sections réunies, publié au recueil Lebon, ECLI:FR:CESSR:2012:341562.20120319; art. 1: pourvoi de la SA Groupe Partouche rejeté; art. 2: 3 000 euros payable to Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique; Official ArianeWeb text of the decision; revuegeneraledudroit is a reproduction | conseil-etat.fr | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
3 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Conseil d'État: a casino building owned by Partouche is a 'bien de retour' of the commune | Conseil d'État, 7e-2e chambres réunies | Judgment entered |
| Partouche ordered to hand over the Berck casino building under EUR 500/day penalty | Conseil d'État, 7e-2e chambres réunies | Judgment entered |
| La Ciotat casino concession to Partouche's Pleinair annulled for 2027 | Tribunal administratif de Marseille, 3e chambre | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.