Sweden required those who ran lotteries/games of chance to have licences to practice in Sweden. P said this infringed their right to provide servicesd pursuant to art. 49 (freedom to provide services). The Swedish court asked the ECJ (1) whether the principle of effective judicial protection makes necessary to provide a free standing challenge to a national measure on the basis that it conflicts with an EC treaty; and (2) whether the principle requires it to be possible in the legal order of a Member State to obtain interim relief suspending the application of national measures until the competent court has given a ruling on whether those measures are compatible with Community law. ECJ held that a free standing challenge was unnecessary, provided there was some other domestic action that allowed the incompatibility to be determined (national procedural autonomy), but which was no less advantageous (equivalency). Principle of effective judicial protection did however mean that it was necessary for a NC to be able to order interim relief from a national measure while ECJ judged compatibility with EC law. This judgment says that national procedural autonomy is preserved, albeit that the ECJ seems to go quite far in examining the national procedural rules. Here, there were many ways Swedish laws could be challenged under lots of different procedures, therefore equivalency is fulfilled.