Proposal for a new Interstate Treaty on Gambling (draft of the State of Hesse)

Entwurf eines staatsvertrages_zur_neuregelung_des_gluecksspielwesens_in_deutschland from Martin Arendts

CJEU will pronounce decision in Ince referral case (C-336/14) on 4 February 2016

CJEU will pronounce decision in Ince referral case (C-336/14) on 4 February 2016 from Martin Arendts

Arendts, Germany: Change is needed

Arendts, Germany: Change is needed from Martin Arendts

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in the Ince case (C-336/14)

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar (ince, C-336/14) from Martin Arendts

Hessian State Government proposes fundamental changes to German Interstate Treaty on Gambling

Sportwettenrechtrecht aktuell Nr. 132 from Martin Arendts

Arendts on failed gambling licensing procedures (European Gaming Lawyer)

Failed gambling licensing procedures from Martin Arendts

CJEU further clarifies requirements for EU-compliant gambling law

Brussels, 12 June 2015

Yesterday, the CJEU not only questioned several aspects of the Hungarian gambling law, but its ruling also provided a number of conclusions that are widely applicable (Case C-98/14, Berlington Hungary). These included taxation, the need to provide an attractive regulated offer and the requirement to notify gambling legislation.

EGBA Secretary General Maarten Haijer said: “The ruling of the CJEU is a timely reminder to Hungary and other Member States that national gambling legislation needs to respect the requirements of EU law. In particular, legislation must actually and primarily address the pursued objectives. Restrictions can only be justified if they serve to combat actual problems in the Member States, for example with regard to gambling-related crime or gambling addiction. Today’s ruling adds to the growing body of CJEU case law on gambling and the limits within which Member States must set their gambling policy.”

The particular case at hand concerns an amendment to the Hungarian law on games of chance made in 2012, which prohibited the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades (allowing them only in casinos).

The CJEU confirms (see link http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=164955&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=496760) that:

- Prohibitions are found to constitute technical rules, which need to be notified to the EC: “the provisions of national legislation that prohibit the operation…constitute ‘technical rules’ within the meaning of that provision, drafts of which must be communicated...” to the European Commission (para. 100)

- The CJEU confirms that taxes may constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services: “… national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, without providing for a transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the … tax … constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services, guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU provided that it is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom to provide the services…” (para.42)

- The Court also inter alia embraces the need to have an attractive regulated offer as a pre-requisite to channel the consumer: “In order to achieve that objective of channelling into controlled circuits, the authorised operators must provide a reliable, but at the same time attractive, alternative to a prohibited activity...” (para. 70)

It will now be to the local Court in Hungary to provide the material ruling in the case, taking into account today’s CJEU conclusions.

For more information, please contact: Maarten Haijer, Secretary General of EGBA: +32 2 554 08 90, maarten.haijer@egba.eu

Arendts, The German Licensing Fiasco

Arendts_Germany licensing procedure_igamingbusiness from Martin Arendts

Ince case: New referral to the CJEU from Germany

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Sonthofen (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Sebat Ince

(Case C-336/14)

 

Language of the case: German

 

Referring court

Amtsgericht Sonthofen

 

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Sebat Ince

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Kempten

 

Questions referred

 

I.    On the first charge (January 2012) and the second charge in so far as it relates to the period up to the end of June 2012:

 

 

1(a)    Must Article 56 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that criminal prosecution authorities are prohibited from penalising the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions carried on without German authorisation on behalf of betting organisers licensed in other Member States, where such intermediation is subject to the condition that the betting organiser too must hold a German authorisation, but the legal position under statute that is contrary to EU law (‘monopoly on sports betting’) prohibits the national authorities from issuing an authorisation to non-State-owned betting organisers?

 

1(b)    Is the answer to question 1(a) altered by the fact that, in one of the 15 German Länder which jointly established and jointly implement the State monopoly on sports betting, the State authorities maintain, in prohibition or criminal proceedings, that the statutory prohibition on the issue of an authorisation to private suppliers is not applied in the event of an application for an authorisation to operate as an organiser or intermediary in that federal Land?

 

1(c)    Must the principles of EU law, in particular the freedom to provide services, and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-186/11 be interpreted as precluding a permanent prohibition or an imposition of penalties (described as ‘precautionary’) on the cross-border intermediation of bets on sporting competitions, where this is justified on the ground that it ‘was not obvious, that is to say recognisable without further examination’ to the prohibiting authority at the time of its decision that the intermediation activity fulfils all the substantive conditions of authorisation (apart from the reservation of such activities to a State monopoly)?

 

2    Must Directive 98/34/EC ¹ be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions via a gaming machine, without a German authorisation, on behalf of a betting organiser licensed in another EU Member State, where the interventions by the State are based on a law, not notified to the European Commission, which was adopted by an individual Land and has as its content the expired Staatsvertrag zum Glücksspielwesen (State Treaty on Gaming) (‘the GlüStV’)?

 

II.    The second charge in so far as it relates to the period from July 2012

3    Must Article 56 TFEU, the requirement of transparency, the principle of equality and the EU-law prohibition of preferential treatment be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for the intermediation of bets on sporting competitions, without a German authorisation, on behalf of a betting organiser licensed in another EU Member State in a situation characterised by the Glücksspieländerungsstaatsvertrag (State Treaty amending the provisions on games of chance) (‘the GlüÄndStV’), applicable for a period of nine years and containing an ‘experimental clause for bets on sporting competitions’, which, for a period of seven years, provides for the theoretical possibility of awarding also to non-State-owned betting organisers a maximum of 20 licences, legally effective in all German Länder, as a necessary condition of authorisation to operate as an intermediary, where:

 

(a)    the licensing procedure and disputes raised in that connection are managed by the licensing authority in conjunction with the law firm which has regularly advised most of the Länder and their lottery undertakings on matters relating to the monopoly on sports betting that is contrary to EU law and represented them before the national courts in proceedings against private betting suppliers, and was entrusted with the task of representing the State authorities in the preliminary ruling proceedings in Markus Stoß [and Others, ,,,, and, EU:C:2010:504], Carmen Media [Group,, EU:C:2010:505] and Winner Wetten [, EU:C:2010:503];

 

(b)    the call for tenders for licences published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 August 2012 gave no details of the minimum requirements applicable to the proposals to be submitted, the content of the other declarations and evidence required or the selection of the maximum of 20 licensees, such details not having been communicated until after the expiry of the deadline for submission of tenders, in a so-called ‘information memorandum’ and numerous other documents, and only to tenderers who had qualified for the ‘second stage’ of the licensing procedure;

 

(c)    eight months after the start of the procedure, the licensing authority, contrary to the call for tenders, invites only 14 tenderers to present their social responsibility and safety policies in person, because these have fulfilled all of the minimum conditions for a licence, but, 15 months after the start of the procedure, announces that not one of the tenderers has provided ‘verifiable’ evidence that it fulfilled the minimum conditions;

 

(d)    the State-controlled tenderer ‘Ods’ (Ods Deutschland Sportwetten GmbH), consisting of a consortium of State-owned lottery companies, is one of the 14 tenderers invited to present their proposals to the licensing authority but, because of its organisational links to organisers of sporting events, is probably not eligible for a licence because the law (Paragraph 21(3) of the GlüÄndStV) requires a strict separation of active sport and the bodies organising it from the organisation and intermediation of bets on sporting competitions;

 

(e)    one of the requirements for a licence is to demonstrate ‘the lawful origin of the resources necessary to organise the intended offer of sports betting facilities’;

 

(f)    the licensing authority and the gaming board that decides on the award of licences, consisting of representatives from the Länder, do not avail themselves of the possibility of awarding licences to private betting organisers, whereas State-owned lottery undertakings are permitted to organise bets on sporting competitions, lotteries and other games of chance without a licence, and to operate and advertise them via their nationwide network of commercial betting outlets, for up to a year after the award of any licences?

  ____________

¹ Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

Arendts on the sports betting licensing procedure in Germany

Germany: sports betting licensing procedure from Martin Arendts

EGBA: CJEU: INCONSISTENCY OF AUSTRIAN GAMBLING LEGISLATION CONFIRMED AGAIN

Brussels, 30 April 2014

 

EGBA welcomes today’s ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Pfleger case (C-390/12) that largely follows the Opinion issued by AG Sharpston on 14 November 2013. The Court confirms its well-settled case-law according to which a national gambling legislation is compliant with EU law only if it is consistent, i.e. if the declared public interest objectives are actually pursued free of hypocrisy, in a consistent and systematic manner. Not surprisingly, the Court also rules that the burden of proof regarding the proportionality and consistency of a measure rests with the Member States. Notably, this is the first time the CJEU has confirmed the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a ruling on gambling.

• The CJEU recalled the Member States’ burden of proof: a Member State wishing to justify a restrictive measure “[…] must supply the court called on to rule on that question with all the evidence […] to be satisfied that the measure does indeed comply with the requirements deriving from the principle of proportionality” (para 50, emphasis added).[1]

• If the national court considers “[…] that the real purpose of the restrictive system at issue is not the fight against crime and the protection of gamblers, but a mere increase of State tax revenue […], it would have to conclude that the system at issue […] is incompatible with European Union law (paras 54-55, emphasis added). Therefore, the CJEU reconfirms that “[…] Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation […], where that legislation does not actually pursue the objective of protecting gamblers or fighting crime […] in a consistent and systematic manner” (para 56, emphasis added).

• For the first time in a gambling-related ruling the CJEU confirms the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: “[…] an unjustified or disproportionate restriction of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU is also not permitted under […] Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter” (para 59).

• Finally, the CJEU reiterates that “where a restrictive system has been established for games of chance and that system is incompatible with Article 56 TFEU, an infringement of the system by an economic operator cannot give rise to penalties” (para 64, emphasis added).

EGBA Secretary General Maarten Haijer comments: ”We welcome the Court’s decision, which confirms that the Austrian gambling legislation is in breach of EU law. Today’s ruling strengthens the requirement that Member States’ gambling laws should be consistent.”
 

Mr Haijer further adds: “In this context, we want to remind that the European Commission acted in its proper role as guardian of the treaties by launching formal infringement proceedings against six Member States last November. Whilst we encourage the Commission to take the appropriate next steps in these proceedings and open new proceedings where necessary, we especially urge the Member States to pursue their stated public interest objectives in a consistent and systematic manner free of hypocrisy.”

The Austrian Gambling system has recently been subject to several Court cases both on national and EU levels, in particular the CJEU cases C-64/08, Engelmann; C-347/09, Dickinger and Ömer as well as C-176/11, Hit and Hit Larix, in which the CJEU has detected major inconsistencies in the Austrian gambling legislation and hence declared that major parts of the Austrian system are non-compliant with EU law.
 

---

[1] The first and only prevalence study on Austria [Kalke et al 2011] shows very similar prevalence rates as in open, liberalized markets such as UK

Commission requests Member States to comply with EU law when regulating gambling services

Press release of the European Commission

 

Brussels, 20 November 2013

 

Today, the European Commission has called on a number of Member States to ensure compliance of their national regulatory frameworks for gambling services with the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Member States are in principle free to set the objectives of their policies on online gambling. They may restrict or limit the cross-border supply of all or certain types of gambling services on the basis of public interest objectives such as consumer protection or the prevention of fraud and other criminal activities. However, national gambling systems must respect EU law.

 

Member States must demonstrate the suitability and necessity of the measure in question, in particular the existence of a problem linked to the public interest objective at stake and the consistency of the regulatory system. Member States must also demonstrate that the public interest objectives are being pursued in a consistent and systematic manner. They must not undertake, facilitate or tolerate measures that would run counter to the achievement of these objectives.
 

In its Communication “Towards a comprehensive European framework on online gambling”, adopted on 23 October 2012 (see IP/12/1135), the Commission announced that it would accelerate completion of its assessment of national provisions in the pending infringements cases and complaints and take enforcement action wherever necessary. After consultation of the Member States concerned, decisions on a first series of pending cases have now been taken. Concretely, the Commission has today:

• requested Sweden to comply with EU rules on the free movement of services with regard to the regulation and supervision of its gambling monopoly;
• closed an infringement case against Finland on the compliance of the national provisions establishing exclusive rights for the offering of gambling services with EU law;
• decided to send to Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Romania an official request for information on national legislation restricting the supply of gambling services.

The Commission has also closed investigations and proceedings against several Member States which had not reached the stage of a formal infringement proceeding. Proceedings against other Member States remain open – either because the national rules in question are still under investigation or in the process of being substantially amended.

 

Swedish rules for the establishment of an exclusive right for the offering of gambling services do not comply with EU internal market rules

In two separate proceedings the European Commission has requested Sweden to ensure compliance of its national rules establishing exclusive rights for the provision of online betting services and for the provision of online poker services with EU law. In previous requests the Commission had sought to verify whether the restrictions in question are compatible with Article 56 TFEU, which guarantees the free movement of services. The Commission found that the restrictive policy in the area of gambling services is not applied in a systematic and consistent manner and that the holder of the exclusive right is not subject to strict state control. The Commission enquiries cover the cross-border provision of online sports betting and poker services, but also deal with issues such as advertising and sponsorship. The Commission requests Sweden, in the form of an additional reasoned opinion on online betting and a reasoned opinion on online poker services, to take action to fully comply with EU rules.

 

Concerning restrictions to the provision of online betting services the Commission had already issued a reasoned opinion in 2007 (IP/07/909). However, in view of the time that had elapsed, developments in Sweden and in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the area of gambling services in the intervening period, the Commission has deemed it useful to clarify the basis for its argumentation and to allow the Member State concerned to respond to these new developments.

If Sweden fails to act within two months in relation to these two proceedings, the Commission may refer these cases to the EU Court of Justice.

 

Commission confirms compliance of Finnish gambling law with EU rules

The European Commission has concluded that the Finnish legislation establishing an exclusive right for the offering of gambling services complies with EU law and is applied in a consistent and systematic manner.

 

The Commission launched infringement proceedings against Finland in 2006 (IP/06/436). These proceedings concerned the cross border provision and marketing of sports betting services. The Commission considered that the Finnish law at the time did not serve to achieve the public interest objectives invoked in a consistent and systematic manner. This process culminated in the adoption of an amended national framework law on gambling which entered into force on 1 January 2012.

The revised Finnish Lotteries Act and related implementing measures establish a statutory gambling monopoly, tighten the rules on the operation of games and the promotion of gambling services and establish revised rules and means for supervision and enforcement of gambling offers and rules. They provide the necessary structure to ensure that the activity of the monopoly is limited to a policy of controlled expansion in the betting and gaming sector, aiming to channel the propensity to gamble into controlled activities, and does not incite and encourage consumers to participate in games of chance – in terms of the supply and marketing of gambling services. The responsible Finnish authorities have been provided with the means to effectively supervise the activities of the gambling monopoly and to enforce the national gambling rules. The Finnish Government furthermore provided substantive information and evidence on the implementation and application of the amended rules and a first evaluation of their impact.

 

The Commission therefore concluded that the revised law constitutes a consistent and systematic pursuit of the objective sought by the establishment of a gambling monopoly in a Member State and corresponds to the requirements set by the Court for this establishment. The Finnish authorities have sufficiently demonstrated that the revised law and its implementation and application comply with these requirements. The Commission has therefore closed the legal case against Finland.

 

Commission enquires into the licensing procedure and conditions for the provision of online gambling services in Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Romania

The European Commission has decided to send official requests for information on national legislation restricting the supply of certain gambling services to Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. In these cases the Commission wishes to verify whether the measures in question are compatible with Article 56 TFEU, which guarantees the free movement of services, and has asked a number of questions in relation to the licensing procedure and conditions for the provision of gambling services.

 

The Commission has concerns about the compatibility of national provisions subjecting the provision of online gambling services to establishing a physical presence in the recipient Member State, prescribing a specific legal form on the basis of national law, requesting prior consent of the authorities in relation to any changes in the shareholder structure or banning foreign capital with EU law.

 

Concerning Belgium the Commission has also raised questions about the transparency of the Belgian legal framework for gambling, in particular with regard to the rules governing the legal conduct of online gambling business and in view of the grant of a betting licence through Royal Decree to the National Lottery.

 

With regard to the Romanian legal framework for gambling the Commission has asked further questions on the coherence of the national gambling policy.

 

To Cyprus the Commission has submitted additional questions concerning the scope of the Cypriot Gambling Law with regard to different operators authorised to offer their services in the Member State. The Commission has concerns about the equal treatment of gambling service providers.

eGR: Demystifing Germany

Artikel demystifying germany_ma from Martin Arendts

State aid: Commission refers Greece to Court for failure to recover incompatible aid from certain Greek casinos and from Aluminium of Greece SA

The European Commission has referred Greece to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for failing to comply with two distinct Commission decisions that ordered Greece to recover incompatible state aid from three Greek casinos (see IP/11/635) and from Aluminium of Greece SA (see IP/11/864) In both cases, over two years after the Commission decisions, the full aid amounts have still not been paid back.

"Member States have numerous possibilities to support business in line with EU state aid rules. However, when subsidies procure distortive advantages to selected companies without furthering any common interest goal they must be recovered swiftly. This is necessary to restore a level playing field and to preserve the effectiveness of the rules themselves." said Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the Commission in charge of competition policy.

Greek casinos

In 2009 the Commission received a complaint about the taxation of admissions to casinos in Greece. Indeed, a €12 admission tax per person was imposed on private casinos, while the public casinos of Mont Parnès and Corfu and the private casino of Thessaloniki were only paying €4.8. The Commission considered that this different fiscal treatment provides a selective advantage to certain casinos and causes the State to forgo revenues which it would otherwise have collected. In May 2011, the Commission therefore ordered Greece to recover the aid granted through this advantage since 1999 and to end the incompatible scheme.

Aluminium of Greece

In July 2011, the Commission requested Greece to recover incompatible state aid in the form of preferential electricity tariffs from Aluminium of Greece. The aid amount is calculated as the difference between PCC's revenues from the standard tariff between January 2007 and March 2008 and the revenues from the tariff that was actually applied to Aluminium of Greece SA in the same period. According to information provided by Greece, the Commission calculated the aid principal as amounting to €17.4 million.

Background

In both cases, Greece had four months from the decision to ensure its implementation. In November 2012, one and a half years after the decision, Greece abolished the measure in favour of the casinos. For the casino of Mont Parnès and for the casino of Thessaloniki, the recovery orders are (for their largest part, i.e. approximately 85%-90%) suspended by national courts, in violation of applicable EU rules. For the casino of Corfu, no payment at all has been reported.

Regarding Aluminium of Greece SA, the aid has not been recovered up to date. The recovery procedure has been suspended by a national court, in clear violation of EU law.

In both cases, the beneficiaries and (in the case of the Greek casinos only) Greece have appealed the Commission's 2011 decisions before the EU General Court. However, no interim measures have been requested (nor granted) and the appeals have no suspensive effect.

Background on recovery

Member States have to recover state aid that has been found incompatible by the Commission, within the deadline set in the Commission decision. This is very important because delays in the recovery of unlawful subsidies maintain the distortion of competition created by the aid. That is why Article 14 of Regulation n° 659/99 and the Notice on the implementation of decisions ordering the recovery of unlawful or incompatible aid (see IP/07/1609) provide that Member States should effectively recover the aid from the beneficiary without delay.

If a Member State does not implement a recovery decision, the Commission may refer the matter to the Court of Justice under Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) that allows the Commission to directly refer cases to the Court for violations of EU state aid rules.

If a Member State does not comply with the judgment, the Commission may ask the Court to impose penalty payments under Article 260 of the TFEU.

Press release of the European Commission, 17 July 2013 

State aid: Horserace betting levies must be fully compliant with EU state aid rules

Brussels, 19 June 2013: The industry bodies representing the leading European online betting operators are concerned about today’s European Commission decision (C 34/10) that confirms a French levy to fund ‘the improvement of the equine species and the promotion of horse breeding’ is in line with EU state aid rules.

According to the European Commission: ‘State aid is prohibited under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Nevertheless, some strict exceptions authorise aid justified by common interest objectives, i.e. for services of general economic interest, as long as they do not distort competition in such a way as to be against the public interest.’

Against that background, the RGA and EGBA would make the following points:

• Under the EU Treaty, state aid remains as a matter of principle forbidden and exceptions can only be granted in well defined and limited circumstances
• It is essential that when aspects of certain levies, such as the French horserace betting levy, are deemed by the European Commission to constitute justifiable state aid that the rationale for that decision is transparent and legally robust.
• The Commission’s decision in the French horserace betting levy case has only just been made and will be reviewed thoroughly by the betting industry and other stakeholders. The industry will seek assurances from the Commission where it has cause for concern and subsequent legal challenges have not been ruled out. The industry will scrutinize previous Commission decisions and standing case-law to see if horse breeding can indeed be categorised as a service of general economic interest (SGEI).
• In general terms, levies or parts of levies can only be justifiable if they are truly serving common interest objectives. That might, for instance, include veterinary research or treatment.
• However, a clear distinction must be made between that and the funds being extracted by law from one industry and transferred to another industry for commercial or quasi-commercial purposes. This would distort competition between sectors and Member States and, as such, would be a breach of State Aid rules and liable to legal challenge.
• In that respect, we take note of the fact that France proposed the introduction of this levy in 2010 because it feared that the opening to competition of the online horserace betting sector would threaten the sport’s revenues. In fact recently published figures show that not only has this not happened but that the overall stakes on online horserace betting increased by 9% between 2011 and 2012 from €1034 million to €1124 million (see link) and that the overall stakes bet online (see link) with the French incumbent operator (PMU) have increased by 11.1% between 2011 and 2012 totalling €971.1 million and so keeping an online market share of 86%. The French incumbent operator (PMU) still enjoys a monopoly in the retail market and competition in the online market remains limited due to the fact that only pool betting was allowed in 2010 which requires high financial liquidity to be competitive and hence constitutes a material market entry barrier.

press release of Remote Gambling Association (RGA) & European Gaming & Betting Association (EGBA)

RGA/EGBA: Remote gambling industry challenges Greek protectionist law

Press release of 28 May 2013

The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) have today filed a complaint with the European Commission regarding the regulations recently notified by the Greek State which restrict the online gambling market. The complaint details a range of non-EU compliant barriers to new market entrants and requests that the Commission, as guardian of the EU Treaties, to address this as a matter of urgency.

The complaint sets out how Greece has failed to comply with EU law in respect of:

• The regulations allow for the introduction of internet blocking following the introduction of a blacklist of unlicensed gambling operators. This is in direct violation of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and of the fundamental right
  to give and receive information.
• Extending OPAP’s offline gambling monopoly to an online monopoly of gambling and
  betting rights, with exclusivity being granted to OPAP until 2020 for online sports betting and on certain aspects of online gambling (i.e. poker and casino gaming) until 2030.

• The repeal of temporary licences that were applied for by commercial gambling operators and were granted by the Hellenic Gambling Commission in the expectation that full licences could be applied for at a later date.

This failure by the Greek State to authorise online gambling is disproportionate and inconsistent, and thus in violation of EU law because:

• The Gambling Act makes it clear that online gambling is, in principle, allowed, subject to the requirements of the Gambling Act.
• However, since 5 August 2011, when the Gambling Act was adopted, no full online gambling licenses have been granted or any licensing provisions announced, started, been consulted on etc.
• The draft regulations will lead the HGC to publish a blacklist containing the names of all online gambling websites which are accessible in Greece, thus meaning that EU- licensed operators are effectively prevented from operating in Greece using their EU licences despite the fact that they are presently unable to apply for licences to provide their services in Greece.

Before the new technical regulations can come into effect there has to be time for the European Commission to look at the proposals and for complaints to be assessed, this is the “standstill period”. The Hellenic Gambling Commission has announced that it will start internet blocking of unlicensed websites the day after the closure of the “standstill period”. This does not take into account the serious concerns of operators and may result in the Greek Government being in breach of European Law if the regulations are not approved.

 

As part of a wide-ranging review of online gambling regimes across Europe, the European Commission is considering the compatibility of the Greek system with the Treaty. This is an opportunity for the Commission to ensure that citizens and companies get the full benefit of an open, secure and competitive online gambling market in Greece.

 

According to Maarten Haijer, Secretary General of EGBA, “Greece and its gambling monopoly OPAP have a long history of non compliance with EU law as recalled by the CJEU in January 2013. The latest notification to the European Commission contains a range of amendments, which are clearly anti-competitive and protectionists. It is high time for the Commission to act and take firm action against Greece.

 

Clive Hawkswood, Chief Executive of the RGA added: “The actions of the Greek State in first opening up and then closing down the online gambling market suggests that they are making decisions in the interests of OPAP rather than the citizens of Greece. Where a regime is contrary to the provision of the Treaties, challenges are unfortunately necessary and unavoidable. We therefore look to the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to enforce those provisions in relation to gambling, as the European Parliament has recently requested.”