Brussels, 13 October 2010 – Europe will gain from harmonised EU rules governing the gaming sector. That’s the message delivered by Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin, to a packed audience today in the European Parliament at the 3rd “Responsible Gaming Day” (RGD).
Organised by the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA), the body representing the licensed EU industry, this year’s RGD - entitled “Responsible Gaming in a digital single market” - brought together over 150 delegates including senior EU and national officials, representatives from the public and private gaming sectors, academia and civil society to discuss the state of play in EU and national gaming regulation.
Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin and chairman of the EGBA, continued: “With almost 2/3 of EU member states already working on or at least considering a reform of their gaming markets, there is a unique momentum now to ensure that regulation delivers for consumers, the industry and Europe. Regulation must be harmonised so that consumers receive similar high protection regardless of where they play. Online gaming is a cross-border activity and consumer protection needs to be applied cross-border as well”.
Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Jean Bergevin, head of unit at DG Internal Market, said: “The Commission is determined to proceed with an objective and factual basis consultation at the earliest by the end of the year in the form of a green paper which will collect the information necessary to determine the most efficient and coherent systems addressing recognized public interest objectives”.
Host of the event in the European Parliament, Timothy Kirkhope, MEP added: “This is a golden opportunity to begin to set in place a level playing field for a sector which is struggling with a patchwork of different rules. I have great faith in Commissioner Barnier that that he will take heed of our discussions today, and begin to work out a strategy to ensure that online gambling can become a legitimate part of the internal market.”
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
Sigrid.Ligne@egba.eu
Mittwoch, 13. Oktober 2010
Mittwoch, 8. September 2010
EGBA: Online gaming: Time for change in Europe
In landmark ruling the ECJ concludes that the German sports betting and lotteries monopoly is unjustified and inconsistent
Brussels, 8 September 2010
Three preliminary rulings(1) handed down today by the European Court of Justice confirm that the “German rules do not limit games of chance in a consistent and systematic manner” and stresses that “national rules concerning that monopoly, held to be contrary to the fundamental freedoms of the Union, cannot continue to apply during the time necessary to bring it into conformity with (European) Union law” (ECJ press release 78/10).
The Court stresses in particular that “the holders of public monopolies carry out intensive advertising campaigns with a view to maximize profit from lotteries thereby departing from the objectives justifying the existence of those monopolies” (ECJ press release 78/10) .
The Interstate Treaty on Gambling that came into force in 2008 and was supposed to expire at the end of 2011 currently bans online gaming and betting activities in the country. In a recent study Gold Media concluded that the ban had no effect on the yearly 30% growth in consumer demand for online gaming and betting in Germany, but rather had pushed the consumer to portals operated outside of Germany. (2)
The ECJ rulings come at a time of intense political debate in Germany and other European countries on the existing gaming legislation. “More and more stakeholders are raising concerns with regard to the efficiency of a ban on online gaming and are calling on the government to overturn the Interstate Treaty. Their arguments will be bolstered by today´s rulings”, said Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the European Gaming and Betting Association.
“When it comes to consumer protection, the prohibition of online gaming makes no sense. As a matter of fact, online gaming and betting is a popular leisure activity for millions of people. Neither a total ban nor a state monopoly are suitable to meet the aim of protecting consumers”, added Sigrid Ligné.
"There is a need for a political solution that does justice to the demand of consumers to play online and that at the same time ensures a high level of consumer protection. Other Member States have opened or are opening their markets and moving away from a monopoly regime to a multi-operator licensing system. They show that consumers can be better protected in a market that is both regulated and open to competition. It is now up to German politicians to draw the appropriate conclusions and take their responsibility towards their consumers”, said Sigrid Ligné.
- - -
1 C-409/06, C-46/08, C-316/07
2 http://www.goldmedia.com/uploads/media/Pressemeldung_Goldmedia_Gluecksspiel_Deutschland.pdf
Brussels, 8 September 2010
Three preliminary rulings(1) handed down today by the European Court of Justice confirm that the “German rules do not limit games of chance in a consistent and systematic manner” and stresses that “national rules concerning that monopoly, held to be contrary to the fundamental freedoms of the Union, cannot continue to apply during the time necessary to bring it into conformity with (European) Union law” (ECJ press release 78/10).
The Court stresses in particular that “the holders of public monopolies carry out intensive advertising campaigns with a view to maximize profit from lotteries thereby departing from the objectives justifying the existence of those monopolies” (ECJ press release 78/10) .
The Interstate Treaty on Gambling that came into force in 2008 and was supposed to expire at the end of 2011 currently bans online gaming and betting activities in the country. In a recent study Gold Media concluded that the ban had no effect on the yearly 30% growth in consumer demand for online gaming and betting in Germany, but rather had pushed the consumer to portals operated outside of Germany. (2)
The ECJ rulings come at a time of intense political debate in Germany and other European countries on the existing gaming legislation. “More and more stakeholders are raising concerns with regard to the efficiency of a ban on online gaming and are calling on the government to overturn the Interstate Treaty. Their arguments will be bolstered by today´s rulings”, said Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the European Gaming and Betting Association.
“When it comes to consumer protection, the prohibition of online gaming makes no sense. As a matter of fact, online gaming and betting is a popular leisure activity for millions of people. Neither a total ban nor a state monopoly are suitable to meet the aim of protecting consumers”, added Sigrid Ligné.
"There is a need for a political solution that does justice to the demand of consumers to play online and that at the same time ensures a high level of consumer protection. Other Member States have opened or are opening their markets and moving away from a monopoly regime to a multi-operator licensing system. They show that consumers can be better protected in a market that is both regulated and open to competition. It is now up to German politicians to draw the appropriate conclusions and take their responsibility towards their consumers”, said Sigrid Ligné.
- - -
1 C-409/06, C-46/08, C-316/07
2 http://www.goldmedia.com/uploads/media/Pressemeldung_Goldmedia_Gluecksspiel_Deutschland.pdf
Dienstag, 27. Juli 2010
right2bet: EU CONSUMERS LEFT DRASTICALLY SHORT-CHANGED BY STATE GAMBLING MONOPOLIES
RIGHT2BET has exclusively revealed that throughout the World Cup European state betting monopolies offered their customers, on average, 32% worse odds than those available with private betting companies.
Monopoly customers wishing to back their home nation in South Africa were subjected to 35% worse odds than those being offered by the EU-licensed private sector operators that their governments do not allow them to use.
The startling figures have been revealed in the Right2bet World Cup Report which analysed the odds offered on every World Cup match by seven of Europe's biggest betting monopolies, before comparing them to the equivalent prices being offered by other licensed European operators.
The aim of the report was to investigate whether or not Europe's betting monopolies were short-changing their customers via the help of legislation which protects their existence and market dominance.
Right2bet is campaigning for the right of all European consumers to be able to bet with the licensed operator of their choice, regardless of the Member State in which they are based.
Right2bet spokesman Ari Last said: "The figures emanating from this report are quite shocking. Millions of EU consumers who wanted to bet during the World Cup were subjected to hugely inferior prices by the monopolies that their governments strive so hard to protect."
"The protectionist behaviour of certain Member States when it comes to online gambling is a situation that does not conform to the ethos of the single-market, and we hope that the findings of this report will highlight what is undoubtedly an unjust reality."
Right2bet World Cup Report key points:
• Monopolies offered their customers 32% worse odds than licensed private operators
• The 'Perfect Bettor' forced to bet with a monopoly would have made €629 less than they would have done if they were allowed to bet with other EU-licensed operators in the private sector
• On average, a monopoly customer choosing to back the 'favourite' throughout every one of the 64 tournament matches would have received 38% less value, while one who chose to back the 'outsider' throughout each game of the tournament would have received 35% less value
• Monopolies offered customers wishing to back their home nation 35% worse odds than private operators
• It is clear from the results published in this report that consumers using online gambling services in the EU are receiving significantly lower value when forced to use a state monopoly provider
Country breakdowns:
• Germany: 48% worse off
• Sweden: 40% worse off
• The Netherlands: 35% worse off
• France: 31.5% worse off
• Greece: 31% worse off
• Denmark: 14.4% worse off
Monopoly customers wishing to back their home nation in South Africa were subjected to 35% worse odds than those being offered by the EU-licensed private sector operators that their governments do not allow them to use.
The startling figures have been revealed in the Right2bet World Cup Report which analysed the odds offered on every World Cup match by seven of Europe's biggest betting monopolies, before comparing them to the equivalent prices being offered by other licensed European operators.
The aim of the report was to investigate whether or not Europe's betting monopolies were short-changing their customers via the help of legislation which protects their existence and market dominance.
Right2bet is campaigning for the right of all European consumers to be able to bet with the licensed operator of their choice, regardless of the Member State in which they are based.
Right2bet spokesman Ari Last said: "The figures emanating from this report are quite shocking. Millions of EU consumers who wanted to bet during the World Cup were subjected to hugely inferior prices by the monopolies that their governments strive so hard to protect."
"The protectionist behaviour of certain Member States when it comes to online gambling is a situation that does not conform to the ethos of the single-market, and we hope that the findings of this report will highlight what is undoubtedly an unjust reality."
Right2bet World Cup Report key points:
• Monopolies offered their customers 32% worse odds than licensed private operators
• The 'Perfect Bettor' forced to bet with a monopoly would have made €629 less than they would have done if they were allowed to bet with other EU-licensed operators in the private sector
• On average, a monopoly customer choosing to back the 'favourite' throughout every one of the 64 tournament matches would have received 38% less value, while one who chose to back the 'outsider' throughout each game of the tournament would have received 35% less value
• Monopolies offered customers wishing to back their home nation 35% worse odds than private operators
• It is clear from the results published in this report that consumers using online gambling services in the EU are receiving significantly lower value when forced to use a state monopoly provider
Country breakdowns:
• Germany: 48% worse off
• Sweden: 40% worse off
• The Netherlands: 35% worse off
• France: 31.5% worse off
• Greece: 31% worse off
• Denmark: 14.4% worse off
Samstag, 24. Juli 2010
Referral to ECJ from UK with regard to the taxation of FOBTs ("Rank Group")
Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 May 2010 - Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group PLC
(Case C-260/10)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Defendant: The Rank Group PLC
Questions referred
Where a Member State in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive1 subjected certain types of machines used for gambling ("Part III gaming machines") to VAT, while retaining exemption for other such machines (which included fixed odds betting terminals, "FOBTs"), and where it is contended that in so doing the Member State infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality: is it
(i) determinative, or (ii) relevant, when comparing Part III gaming machines and FOBTs that
(a) FOBTs offered activities that were "betting" under domestic law (or activities that the relevant regulatory authority, for the purposes of exercising its regulatory powers, was prepared to treat as "betting" under domestic law)
and
(b) Part III gaming machines offered activities subject to a different classification under domestic law, namely "gaming" and that gaming and betting were subject to different regulatory regimes under that Member State's law relating to the control and regulation of gambling? If so, what are the differences between the regulatory regimes in question to which the national court should have regard?
In determining whether the principle of fiscal neutrality requires the same tax treatment of the types of machine referred to in Question 1 (FOBTs and Part III gaming machines), what level of abstraction should be adopted by the national court in determining whether the products are similar? In particular, to what extent is it relevant to take into account the following matters:
a. similarities and differences in the permitted maximum stakes and prizes as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;
b. that FOBTs could be played only on certain types of premises licensed for betting, which were different, and subject to regulatory constraints that were different from those applicable to, premises licensed for gaming (although FOBTs and up to two Part III gaming machines could be played alongside each other in premises licensed for betting);
c. that the chances of winning the prize on FOBTs were directly related to the published fixed odds, whereas the chances of winning on Part III gaming machines could in some cases be varied by a device that ensured a particular percentage return to the operator and player over time;
d. similarities and differences in the formats available on FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;
e. similarities and differences as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines in the interaction which could occur between the player and the machine;
f. whether or not the matters referred to above were either known to the generality of players of the machines or regarded by them as relevant or important;
g. whether the difference in VAT treatment is justified by any of the above?
In a situation where a Member State, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive, exempted gambling from VAT but subjected a defined class of machines used for gambling to VAT: -
a) is there in principle a defence of due diligence available to a Member Sate to a claim that the principle of fiscal neutrality has been infringed by that Member Sate; and
b) if the answer to (a) is "yes", what factors are relevant in determining whether or not the Member Sate is entitled to rely on that defence?
____________
1 - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, p. 1
(Case C-260/10)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Defendant: The Rank Group PLC
Questions referred
Where a Member State in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive1 subjected certain types of machines used for gambling ("Part III gaming machines") to VAT, while retaining exemption for other such machines (which included fixed odds betting terminals, "FOBTs"), and where it is contended that in so doing the Member State infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality: is it
(i) determinative, or (ii) relevant, when comparing Part III gaming machines and FOBTs that
(a) FOBTs offered activities that were "betting" under domestic law (or activities that the relevant regulatory authority, for the purposes of exercising its regulatory powers, was prepared to treat as "betting" under domestic law)
and
(b) Part III gaming machines offered activities subject to a different classification under domestic law, namely "gaming" and that gaming and betting were subject to different regulatory regimes under that Member State's law relating to the control and regulation of gambling? If so, what are the differences between the regulatory regimes in question to which the national court should have regard?
In determining whether the principle of fiscal neutrality requires the same tax treatment of the types of machine referred to in Question 1 (FOBTs and Part III gaming machines), what level of abstraction should be adopted by the national court in determining whether the products are similar? In particular, to what extent is it relevant to take into account the following matters:
a. similarities and differences in the permitted maximum stakes and prizes as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;
b. that FOBTs could be played only on certain types of premises licensed for betting, which were different, and subject to regulatory constraints that were different from those applicable to, premises licensed for gaming (although FOBTs and up to two Part III gaming machines could be played alongside each other in premises licensed for betting);
c. that the chances of winning the prize on FOBTs were directly related to the published fixed odds, whereas the chances of winning on Part III gaming machines could in some cases be varied by a device that ensured a particular percentage return to the operator and player over time;
d. similarities and differences in the formats available on FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;
e. similarities and differences as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines in the interaction which could occur between the player and the machine;
f. whether or not the matters referred to above were either known to the generality of players of the machines or regarded by them as relevant or important;
g. whether the difference in VAT treatment is justified by any of the above?
In a situation where a Member State, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive, exempted gambling from VAT but subjected a defined class of machines used for gambling to VAT: -
a) is there in principle a defence of due diligence available to a Member Sate to a claim that the principle of fiscal neutrality has been infringed by that Member Sate; and
b) if the answer to (a) is "yes", what factors are relevant in determining whether or not the Member Sate is entitled to rely on that defence?
____________
1 - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, p. 1
And yet another referral to the ECJ from Italy with regard to the cross-border provision of sports betting ("Minesi")
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2010 - Criminal proceedings against Matteo Minesi
(Case C-279/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania
Party to the main proceedings
Matteo Minesi
Question referred
The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences:
(a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;
(b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);
(c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.
(Case C-279/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania
Party to the main proceedings
Matteo Minesi
Question referred
The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences:
(a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;
(b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);
(c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.
New referral to the ECJ from Italy with regard to the cross-border provision of sports betting ("Sacci")
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), made on 23 March 2010 - Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi
(Case C-255/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale di Roma
Party to the main proceedings
Alessandro Sacchi
Question referred
What interpretation is to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events, regard being had also to the principle of effective judicial protection, in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences,:
(a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators;
(b) ensure the de facto maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the conclusion of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their betting outlets within a specified distance from those already in existence);
(c) lay down cases in which the licence may lapse, with forfeiture of large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?
(Case C-255/10)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale di Roma
Party to the main proceedings
Alessandro Sacchi
Question referred
What interpretation is to be given to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events, regard being had also to the principle of effective judicial protection, in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences,:
(a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators;
(b) ensure the de facto maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the conclusion of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their betting outlets within a specified distance from those already in existence);
(c) lay down cases in which the licence may lapse, with forfeiture of large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?
Dienstag, 20. Juli 2010
Online gaming and betting: Polish draft legislation fails EU screening test
The European Commission issued yesterday a detailed opinion against the Polish draft legislation regulating online gaming and betting. The Polish draft legislation also raised concerns among a number of Member States such as the United Kingdom and Malta.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said: “We support the Polish government’s intention to join the growing number of countries regulating the online gaming and betting market in the EU. However, the current draft foresees a wide range of obstacles and obligations which will make it highly difficult for EU licensed and regulated operators to apply for a license in Poland. We urge Poland to revise its draft and align it with the requirements of the EU Treaty.”
According to the EGBA, a number of key provisions in the draft are highly doubtful under EU law. This includes:
- the requirement for licensees to be established in Poland either in the form of a joint stock company or in the form of a limited company with a very high share capital
- the possibility to exclude companies whose shares are quoted on the stock exchanges
- the requirement for online betting companies to install and store their servers in Poland
- the obligation for all transactions related to the betting services to be carried out through a Polish bank or in a branch of a foreign bank established in Poland
- the unjustified exclusion of certain games such as online poker
- the huge differences (in terms of financial guarantees and license fees) required for online and offline operators
“Some of these provisions seem to stem from a legitimate wish to regulate and enforce the rules for the online gaming market but they duplicate requirements already fulfilled in other jurisdictions. EU licensed and regulated companies can fulfill all necessary requirements on fraud prevention and consumer protection without being necessarily established in Poland. This draft law would leave Polish consumers without a fair, secure and competitive online gaming market” added Sigrid Ligné.
In addition, some of the provisions such as the licensing requirements and advertising restrictions also beg the question as to whether the law will be economically attractive for EU licensed operators. The Polish draft law was notified to the European Commission and Member States on 14 April 2010. Today’s detailed opinion extends the standstill period until 16 August, during which time Poland cannot adopt its draft legislation. Poland is required to reply to the Commission’s views. If Poland fails to take into account the Commission’s objections, the Commission can immediately launch infringement proceedings.
press release of EGBA
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said: “We support the Polish government’s intention to join the growing number of countries regulating the online gaming and betting market in the EU. However, the current draft foresees a wide range of obstacles and obligations which will make it highly difficult for EU licensed and regulated operators to apply for a license in Poland. We urge Poland to revise its draft and align it with the requirements of the EU Treaty.”
According to the EGBA, a number of key provisions in the draft are highly doubtful under EU law. This includes:
- the requirement for licensees to be established in Poland either in the form of a joint stock company or in the form of a limited company with a very high share capital
- the possibility to exclude companies whose shares are quoted on the stock exchanges
- the requirement for online betting companies to install and store their servers in Poland
- the obligation for all transactions related to the betting services to be carried out through a Polish bank or in a branch of a foreign bank established in Poland
- the unjustified exclusion of certain games such as online poker
- the huge differences (in terms of financial guarantees and license fees) required for online and offline operators
“Some of these provisions seem to stem from a legitimate wish to regulate and enforce the rules for the online gaming market but they duplicate requirements already fulfilled in other jurisdictions. EU licensed and regulated companies can fulfill all necessary requirements on fraud prevention and consumer protection without being necessarily established in Poland. This draft law would leave Polish consumers without a fair, secure and competitive online gaming market” added Sigrid Ligné.
In addition, some of the provisions such as the licensing requirements and advertising restrictions also beg the question as to whether the law will be economically attractive for EU licensed operators. The Polish draft law was notified to the European Commission and Member States on 14 April 2010. Today’s detailed opinion extends the standstill period until 16 August, during which time Poland cannot adopt its draft legislation. Poland is required to reply to the Commission’s views. If Poland fails to take into account the Commission’s objections, the Commission can immediately launch infringement proceedings.
press release of EGBA
Freitag, 9. Juli 2010
ECJ: Judgment in Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08 - Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg and Anders Gerdin
Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 75/10
Luxembourg, 8 July 2010
Swedish legislation which prohibits the promotion of gambling organised on the Internet by private operators in other Member States for profit is consistent with Community law
However, Community law precludes national legislation which penalises the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence differently from that of gambling organised outside Sweden
Swedish legislation on gambling prohibits and penalises the promotion in Sweden of gambling organised outside that Member State. It reserves the right to organise gambling to operators pursuing socially beneficial objectives or those which are in the public interest.
Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin were the editors in chief and publishers, respectively, of the Swedish newspapers Expressen and Aftonbladet. Between November 2003 and August 2004, they published on the sports pages of their newspapers advertisements for gambling offered on the Internet sites of the companies Expekt, Unibet, Ladbrokes and Centrebet, established in Malta and the United Kingdom. On the basis of those facts, considered to infringe the Swedish law on gambling, they were each sentenced to a criminal penalty of a fine of SEK 50 000 (approximately EUR 5 200) at first instance.
The Svea hovrätt (Stockholm Court of Appeal, Sweden), which must rule on the appeals brought by Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin, questions whether the legislation on which the convictions are based and, more specifically, the provisions which fix the penalties applicable to promotion in Sweden of gambling organised outside that Member State, comply with Community law.
In today’s judgment, the Court observes first of all that Community law requires the abolition of all restrictions on the freedom to provide services, even if those restrictions apply without distinction to national providers of services and to those from other Member States, when they are liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of a service provider established in another Member State where it lawfully provides similar services.
The Court states that the effect of the Swedish legislation, which prohibits the promotion in Sweden both of gambling organised legally in other Member States and of unlicensed gambling in Sweden, is to restrict Swedish consumers’ participation in such gambling.
However, Community law allows restrictions justified, inter alia, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In the absence of harmonisation at European Union level as regards gambling, it is for each Member State to determine in that area, in accordance with its own scale of values, how to protect the interests in question. The Member States are therefore free to set the objectives of their policy on gambling and, where appropriate, to define in detail the level of protection sought. The restrictive measures that they impose must nevertheless satisfy the conditions laid down in the case-law of the Court as regards their proportionality and it is necessary to examine in particular whether the Swedish legislation is suitable for achieving the legitimate objective or objectives invoked by that Member State, and whether it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
The Court observes that it is clear that the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector is, according to the referring court, a fundamental principle of the Swedishlegislation in this field. Those activities are reserved in Sweden to bodies pursuing objectives which are socially beneficial or in the public interest and licences for the operation of gambling have been granted exclusively to public or charitable bodies.
The Court states in this connection that considerations of a cultural, moral or religious nature can justify restrictions on the freedom of gambling operators to provide services, in particular in so far as it might be considered unacceptable to allow private profit to be drawn from the exploitation of a social evil or the weakness of players and their misfortune. According to the scale of values held by each of the Member States and having regard to the discretion available to them, a Member State may restrict the operation of gambling by entrusting it to public or charitable bodies.
Since the gaming operators which caused the advertisements on account of which the criminal proceedings in the main actions were initiated to be published are private undertakings run for profit, which could never have obtained licences for the operation of gambling under Swedish legislation, the Court concludes that the Swedish legislation reflects the objective of the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector and may be regarded as necessary in order to meet such an objective. Community law therefore does not preclude such legislation.
Next, the Court notes that the Swedish law referred to by the Svea hovrätt provides for criminal sanctions only in relation to the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State and does not apply to the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence, that latter offence being punishable only by an administrative penalty. It observes, however, that there is a disagreement between the Swedish Government, on the one hand, and Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin, on the other, on the issue of whether another Swedish law provides for penalties for the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence which are equivalent to those applied in respect of the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State.
The Court points out that, in the context of these proceedings, the interpretation of provisions of national law is a matter for the courts of the Member States, not for the Court of Justice. Consequently, it is for the referring court to examine whether the two infringements at issue, although covered by different laws, are nevertheless subject to equivalent treatment. That court must in particular ascertain whether, on the facts, those infringements are prosecuted by the competent authorities with the same diligence and culminate in the imposition of equivalent penalties by the competent courts.
Thus, the Court concludes that, if the two infringements at issue receive equivalent treatment, the national legislation cannot be regarded as discriminatory. On the other hand, if the persons carrying out the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence incur penalties which are less strict than those imposed on the persons who advertise gambling organised in other Member States, then the Swedish arrangements are discriminatory and thus infringe Community law.
PRESS RELEASE No 75/10
Luxembourg, 8 July 2010
Swedish legislation which prohibits the promotion of gambling organised on the Internet by private operators in other Member States for profit is consistent with Community law
However, Community law precludes national legislation which penalises the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence differently from that of gambling organised outside Sweden
Swedish legislation on gambling prohibits and penalises the promotion in Sweden of gambling organised outside that Member State. It reserves the right to organise gambling to operators pursuing socially beneficial objectives or those which are in the public interest.
Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin were the editors in chief and publishers, respectively, of the Swedish newspapers Expressen and Aftonbladet. Between November 2003 and August 2004, they published on the sports pages of their newspapers advertisements for gambling offered on the Internet sites of the companies Expekt, Unibet, Ladbrokes and Centrebet, established in Malta and the United Kingdom. On the basis of those facts, considered to infringe the Swedish law on gambling, they were each sentenced to a criminal penalty of a fine of SEK 50 000 (approximately EUR 5 200) at first instance.
The Svea hovrätt (Stockholm Court of Appeal, Sweden), which must rule on the appeals brought by Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin, questions whether the legislation on which the convictions are based and, more specifically, the provisions which fix the penalties applicable to promotion in Sweden of gambling organised outside that Member State, comply with Community law.
In today’s judgment, the Court observes first of all that Community law requires the abolition of all restrictions on the freedom to provide services, even if those restrictions apply without distinction to national providers of services and to those from other Member States, when they are liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of a service provider established in another Member State where it lawfully provides similar services.
The Court states that the effect of the Swedish legislation, which prohibits the promotion in Sweden both of gambling organised legally in other Member States and of unlicensed gambling in Sweden, is to restrict Swedish consumers’ participation in such gambling.
However, Community law allows restrictions justified, inter alia, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In the absence of harmonisation at European Union level as regards gambling, it is for each Member State to determine in that area, in accordance with its own scale of values, how to protect the interests in question. The Member States are therefore free to set the objectives of their policy on gambling and, where appropriate, to define in detail the level of protection sought. The restrictive measures that they impose must nevertheless satisfy the conditions laid down in the case-law of the Court as regards their proportionality and it is necessary to examine in particular whether the Swedish legislation is suitable for achieving the legitimate objective or objectives invoked by that Member State, and whether it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
The Court observes that it is clear that the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector is, according to the referring court, a fundamental principle of the Swedishlegislation in this field. Those activities are reserved in Sweden to bodies pursuing objectives which are socially beneficial or in the public interest and licences for the operation of gambling have been granted exclusively to public or charitable bodies.
The Court states in this connection that considerations of a cultural, moral or religious nature can justify restrictions on the freedom of gambling operators to provide services, in particular in so far as it might be considered unacceptable to allow private profit to be drawn from the exploitation of a social evil or the weakness of players and their misfortune. According to the scale of values held by each of the Member States and having regard to the discretion available to them, a Member State may restrict the operation of gambling by entrusting it to public or charitable bodies.
Since the gaming operators which caused the advertisements on account of which the criminal proceedings in the main actions were initiated to be published are private undertakings run for profit, which could never have obtained licences for the operation of gambling under Swedish legislation, the Court concludes that the Swedish legislation reflects the objective of the exclusion of private profit-making interests from the gambling sector and may be regarded as necessary in order to meet such an objective. Community law therefore does not preclude such legislation.
Next, the Court notes that the Swedish law referred to by the Svea hovrätt provides for criminal sanctions only in relation to the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State and does not apply to the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence, that latter offence being punishable only by an administrative penalty. It observes, however, that there is a disagreement between the Swedish Government, on the one hand, and Mr Sjöberg and Mr Gerdin, on the other, on the issue of whether another Swedish law provides for penalties for the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence which are equivalent to those applied in respect of the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State.
The Court points out that, in the context of these proceedings, the interpretation of provisions of national law is a matter for the courts of the Member States, not for the Court of Justice. Consequently, it is for the referring court to examine whether the two infringements at issue, although covered by different laws, are nevertheless subject to equivalent treatment. That court must in particular ascertain whether, on the facts, those infringements are prosecuted by the competent authorities with the same diligence and culminate in the imposition of equivalent penalties by the competent courts.
Thus, the Court concludes that, if the two infringements at issue receive equivalent treatment, the national legislation cannot be regarded as discriminatory. On the other hand, if the persons carrying out the promotion of gambling organised in Sweden without a licence incur penalties which are less strict than those imposed on the persons who advertise gambling organised in other Member States, then the Swedish arrangements are discriminatory and thus infringe Community law.
Dienstag, 8. Juni 2010
bwin lands online gaming licenses in France
France regulates online gaming market and awards bwin sports betting and poker licenses in time for the Football World Cup
Vienna – As one of the first operators, bwin, the world's leading online gaming provider, has been granted French online gaming licenses. Issued by the French regulator ARJEL, the online sports betting license entitles the French subsidiary bwin Entertainment Services (B.E.S. SAS) to offer online sports betting to French customers starting on 9 June 2010. In obtaining this license, all the requirements have been met to ensure the timely launch of a French label just before the Football World Cup. "We were confident throughout that we would be able to start off in a regulated French market before the World Cup kick-off. In obtaining the license, we have successfully jumped the biggest hurdle," says Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin Interactive Entertainment AG. Preparations for the launch of bwin.fr are all complete.
Along with the license for sports betting, B.E.S. SAS was also awarded a poker license. The poker license will become valid as soon as the requisite legal conditions have been established in France. As a result, real-money poker will presumably be available on the French label bwin.fr starting end of June.
Law: Important first step
"We are pleased that, following Italy, another country has followed the call for a clearly regulated and transparent market. The present law is a great first step. There are still a few more miles to go on the road toward establishing legal conditions that warrant fair competition in France. We will be working closely together with the French authorities in order to take these developments forward," says Norbert Teufelberger.
Joint venture SAjOO also obtains sports betting and poker licenses
There is nothing more to stop the start of sajoo.fr in the next few days. SAjOO, a joint venture uniting bwin and the French media group Éditions Philippe Amaury (Amaury Group), has also been issued a provider license by the French regulator. "With our dual-brand strategy, bwin is all set to take on a leading role in the newly regulated French online gaming market," says Norbert Teufelberger.
Vienna – As one of the first operators, bwin, the world's leading online gaming provider, has been granted French online gaming licenses. Issued by the French regulator ARJEL, the online sports betting license entitles the French subsidiary bwin Entertainment Services (B.E.S. SAS) to offer online sports betting to French customers starting on 9 June 2010. In obtaining this license, all the requirements have been met to ensure the timely launch of a French label just before the Football World Cup. "We were confident throughout that we would be able to start off in a regulated French market before the World Cup kick-off. In obtaining the license, we have successfully jumped the biggest hurdle," says Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin Interactive Entertainment AG. Preparations for the launch of bwin.fr are all complete.
Along with the license for sports betting, B.E.S. SAS was also awarded a poker license. The poker license will become valid as soon as the requisite legal conditions have been established in France. As a result, real-money poker will presumably be available on the French label bwin.fr starting end of June.
Law: Important first step
"We are pleased that, following Italy, another country has followed the call for a clearly regulated and transparent market. The present law is a great first step. There are still a few more miles to go on the road toward establishing legal conditions that warrant fair competition in France. We will be working closely together with the French authorities in order to take these developments forward," says Norbert Teufelberger.
Joint venture SAjOO also obtains sports betting and poker licenses
There is nothing more to stop the start of sajoo.fr in the next few days. SAjOO, a joint venture uniting bwin and the French media group Éditions Philippe Amaury (Amaury Group), has also been issued a provider license by the French regulator. "With our dual-brand strategy, bwin is all set to take on a leading role in the newly regulated French online gaming market," says Norbert Teufelberger.
Montag, 7. Juni 2010
Online gambling: barriers removed in Italy
IP/10/504
Brussels, 5 May 2010
The European Commission has ensured that Italian citizens will have access to a wider choice of authorised on-line gambling services as a result of changes made to Italy's laws on online gambling. The Commission has therefore closed a series of legal cases against Italy concerning this legislation. The Commission had previously found that Italy's restrictions on foreign operators were disproportionate and had started legal proceedings against Italy for breaching EU rules on the freedom to provide services. Following the Commission's legal action, the Italian authorities engaged in an open and constructive dialogue with the Commission and amended its on-line gambling legislation.
Before Italy changed its law, the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) and the National Horse Breeders Enhancement Society (UNIRE) had the exclusive right to organise sports betting, including online gambling. As a result, other legitimate European gambling operators could not offer their online services in Italy. Moreover, access to their web sites was effectively blocked from Italy.
While EU law permits Member States to restrict the offering of gambling services in the public interest, for example to prevent gambling addiction or organised crime, such restrictions must be coherent with the Member State's own behaviour in offering the very same services. Furthermore, any measures taken by Member States to restrict the market have to be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Acting upon a complaint, the Commission found that Italy's restrictions on foreign service providers and measures to block access to the web sites at that time were disproportionate. As a result, the Commission started infringement proceedings against Italy in 2006 (IP/06/436 and IP/06/1362).
How will citizens and businesses now benefit?
With its new law, Italy has now opened its online gambling market. Citizens in Italy will now have a broader choice of online gambling services for sports betting, which will continue to be authorised and supervised by the Italian authorities. Meanwhile, other European gambling operators will have the possibility to apply for Italian licences and offer their services in Italy. Nevertheless, gambling will continue to be safeguarded in the general interest in order to protect vulnerable consumers and to prevent gambling addiction as well as criminal activities.
Background
The Commission acted upon receiving a complaint in 2003. After investigating the case, the Commission started infringement proceedings against Italy in 2006 by sending a letter of formal notice, the first stage of an infringement procedure. Following an open and constructive dialogue between the Commission and the Italian authorities, Italy notified the Commission in 2009 it had amended its laws. The Commission welcomes the new Italian law that will allow for the cross border provision of services, with clear rules for the authorisation and the granting of licences to domestic and European operators and has decided to close the case.
More information on the Commission's legal cases against Member States is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm
Brussels, 5 May 2010
The European Commission has ensured that Italian citizens will have access to a wider choice of authorised on-line gambling services as a result of changes made to Italy's laws on online gambling. The Commission has therefore closed a series of legal cases against Italy concerning this legislation. The Commission had previously found that Italy's restrictions on foreign operators were disproportionate and had started legal proceedings against Italy for breaching EU rules on the freedom to provide services. Following the Commission's legal action, the Italian authorities engaged in an open and constructive dialogue with the Commission and amended its on-line gambling legislation.
Before Italy changed its law, the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) and the National Horse Breeders Enhancement Society (UNIRE) had the exclusive right to organise sports betting, including online gambling. As a result, other legitimate European gambling operators could not offer their online services in Italy. Moreover, access to their web sites was effectively blocked from Italy.
While EU law permits Member States to restrict the offering of gambling services in the public interest, for example to prevent gambling addiction or organised crime, such restrictions must be coherent with the Member State's own behaviour in offering the very same services. Furthermore, any measures taken by Member States to restrict the market have to be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Acting upon a complaint, the Commission found that Italy's restrictions on foreign service providers and measures to block access to the web sites at that time were disproportionate. As a result, the Commission started infringement proceedings against Italy in 2006 (IP/06/436 and IP/06/1362).
How will citizens and businesses now benefit?
With its new law, Italy has now opened its online gambling market. Citizens in Italy will now have a broader choice of online gambling services for sports betting, which will continue to be authorised and supervised by the Italian authorities. Meanwhile, other European gambling operators will have the possibility to apply for Italian licences and offer their services in Italy. Nevertheless, gambling will continue to be safeguarded in the general interest in order to protect vulnerable consumers and to prevent gambling addiction as well as criminal activities.
Background
The Commission acted upon receiving a complaint in 2003. After investigating the case, the Commission started infringement proceedings against Italy in 2006 by sending a letter of formal notice, the first stage of an infringement procedure. Following an open and constructive dialogue between the Commission and the Italian authorities, Italy notified the Commission in 2009 it had amended its laws. The Commission welcomes the new Italian law that will allow for the cross border provision of services, with clear rules for the authorisation and the granting of licences to domestic and European operators and has decided to close the case.
More information on the Commission's legal cases against Member States is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm
Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010
ECJ rules on Dutch gambling laws: Industry calls on the European Commission to propose legislation at EU level
Today, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered two preliminary rulings (1) addressing key questions relating to the compliance of the Dutch legislation with the EU Treaty. The cases (C-203/08 and C-258/08) at stake originate in national proceedings involving Ladbrokes and Betfair, two companies, established in the UK.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA, said: “The Court has confirmed that if a Member State wants to prohibit or channel gambling through a single operator it has to comply with strict features that we consider are clearly not met in the context of the Dutch legislation. But it is now for the national judge to assess the consistency of the Dutch gambling policy and to make a final decision”.
She adds: “Internet raises new questions and challenges that cannot be resolved through the judicial process. It is for the European legislator to ensure that this IT-based medium which allows for the highest security standards warrants consistent customer protection and fraud control throughout the EU.”
As confirmed by the Internal Market Commissioner Barnier, there is momentum to take action at EU level in the context of a Green Paper (2) and - whenever necessary - through infringement procedures (3) against Member States that do not comply with EU law.
Sigrid Ligné concludes: “We are confident that reform of the gambling laws will take place in the Netherlands, as they already do throughout the EU. Beyond the legal considerations, you also have to look at the reality of the market. There is a consumer demand for online gaming in the Netherlands, like there is all over Europe. Increasingly, EU Member States like Italy, Denmark and France realize that online gaming is a popular leisure activity and are opening their market to competition. EGBA urges the Dutch authorities to also start regulating the market.”
In line with previous case law, the ECJ confirms that under certain strict circumstances a monopoly can be allowed to promote its offer for the purpose of fraud prevention. However, according to the ECJ:
• If the Netherlands is “pursuing a policy of substantially expanding betting and gaming, by excessively inciting and encouraging consumers to participate in such activities (…) it would have to be concluded that such a policy does not limit betting and gaming activities in a consistent and systematic manner and is not, therefore, suitable for achieving the objective of curbing consumer addiction to such activities” (Ladbrokes, case C-258/08, 28)
• "Since the objective of protecting consumers from gambling addiction is, in principle, difficult to reconcile with a policy of expanding games of chance characterised, inter alia, by the creation of new games and by the advertising of such games, such a policy cannot be regarded as being consistent unless the scale of unlawful activity is significant and the measures adopted are aimed at channeling consumers’ propensity to gamble into activities that are lawful” (Idem, point 30)
• In the context of that assessment, it is, specifically, for the national court to determine whether unlawful gaming activities may constitute a problem in the Netherlands and whether the expansion of authorised and regulated activities would be liable to solve such a problem (Idem, point 29).
When it comes to the national licensing schemes, the ECJ also confirms that:
• "Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the principles of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency are applicable (…) in the field of games of chance” (Betfair case C-203/08, point 62)
• “If a prior administrative authorisation scheme is to be justified even though it derogates from a fundamental freedom, it must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the authorities’ discretion so that it is not used arbitrarily” (Betfair case C-203/08, point 50)
_ _ _
Notes
(1) The preliminary ruling system (under Article 267 TFEU, ex-Article 234 of the EC Treaty) enables national courts to ensure uniform application of EU law in all the Member States. The ECJ has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law in relation to specific legal questions raised by the national courts. In such rulings the Court makes every effort to give a reply which will be of assistance in resolving the dispute, but it is for the referring court to draw the appropriate conclusions from that reply in a final decision.
(2) A Green Paper released by the European Commission is a discussion document intended to stimulate debate and launch a process of consultation, at European level, on a particular topic. It may be followed by a White Paper, an official set of proposals for future EU legislation. A Green Paper on gambling is expected to be published by the European Commission in the autumn 2010.
(3) Infringement procedures brought by the European Commission (under Article 258 TFEU, ex-Article 226 of the EC Treaty) allow the ECJ to give a judgment with regard to the compliance of national legislations with EC law. Under such procedure the ECJ does not just give its interpretation of E law on specific selective questions but is able to have a broader analysis assessing as well the factual situation at stake. Seven Member States (Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, Hungary, the Netherlands and Greece) are currently subject to an infringement procedure in relation to their gambling legislation and have already received a reasoned opinion, the last procedural step before the start of an infringement case at the ECJ.)
press release of EGBA
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA, said: “The Court has confirmed that if a Member State wants to prohibit or channel gambling through a single operator it has to comply with strict features that we consider are clearly not met in the context of the Dutch legislation. But it is now for the national judge to assess the consistency of the Dutch gambling policy and to make a final decision”.
She adds: “Internet raises new questions and challenges that cannot be resolved through the judicial process. It is for the European legislator to ensure that this IT-based medium which allows for the highest security standards warrants consistent customer protection and fraud control throughout the EU.”
As confirmed by the Internal Market Commissioner Barnier, there is momentum to take action at EU level in the context of a Green Paper (2) and - whenever necessary - through infringement procedures (3) against Member States that do not comply with EU law.
Sigrid Ligné concludes: “We are confident that reform of the gambling laws will take place in the Netherlands, as they already do throughout the EU. Beyond the legal considerations, you also have to look at the reality of the market. There is a consumer demand for online gaming in the Netherlands, like there is all over Europe. Increasingly, EU Member States like Italy, Denmark and France realize that online gaming is a popular leisure activity and are opening their market to competition. EGBA urges the Dutch authorities to also start regulating the market.”
In line with previous case law, the ECJ confirms that under certain strict circumstances a monopoly can be allowed to promote its offer for the purpose of fraud prevention. However, according to the ECJ:
• If the Netherlands is “pursuing a policy of substantially expanding betting and gaming, by excessively inciting and encouraging consumers to participate in such activities (…) it would have to be concluded that such a policy does not limit betting and gaming activities in a consistent and systematic manner and is not, therefore, suitable for achieving the objective of curbing consumer addiction to such activities” (Ladbrokes, case C-258/08, 28)
• "Since the objective of protecting consumers from gambling addiction is, in principle, difficult to reconcile with a policy of expanding games of chance characterised, inter alia, by the creation of new games and by the advertising of such games, such a policy cannot be regarded as being consistent unless the scale of unlawful activity is significant and the measures adopted are aimed at channeling consumers’ propensity to gamble into activities that are lawful” (Idem, point 30)
• In the context of that assessment, it is, specifically, for the national court to determine whether unlawful gaming activities may constitute a problem in the Netherlands and whether the expansion of authorised and regulated activities would be liable to solve such a problem (Idem, point 29).
When it comes to the national licensing schemes, the ECJ also confirms that:
• "Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that the principles of equal treatment and the consequent obligation of transparency are applicable (…) in the field of games of chance” (Betfair case C-203/08, point 62)
• “If a prior administrative authorisation scheme is to be justified even though it derogates from a fundamental freedom, it must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the authorities’ discretion so that it is not used arbitrarily” (Betfair case C-203/08, point 50)
_ _ _
Notes
(1) The preliminary ruling system (under Article 267 TFEU, ex-Article 234 of the EC Treaty) enables national courts to ensure uniform application of EU law in all the Member States. The ECJ has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law in relation to specific legal questions raised by the national courts. In such rulings the Court makes every effort to give a reply which will be of assistance in resolving the dispute, but it is for the referring court to draw the appropriate conclusions from that reply in a final decision.
(2) A Green Paper released by the European Commission is a discussion document intended to stimulate debate and launch a process of consultation, at European level, on a particular topic. It may be followed by a White Paper, an official set of proposals for future EU legislation. A Green Paper on gambling is expected to be published by the European Commission in the autumn 2010.
(3) Infringement procedures brought by the European Commission (under Article 258 TFEU, ex-Article 226 of the EC Treaty) allow the ECJ to give a judgment with regard to the compliance of national legislations with EC law. Under such procedure the ECJ does not just give its interpretation of E law on specific selective questions but is able to have a broader analysis assessing as well the factual situation at stake. Seven Member States (Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, Hungary, the Netherlands and Greece) are currently subject to an infringement procedure in relation to their gambling legislation and have already received a reasoned opinion, the last procedural step before the start of an infringement case at the ECJ.)
press release of EGBA
RGA: Spanish Presidency issues gambling report
RGA calls for meaningful action to make national laws EU compliant
The Spanish Presidency of the EU submitted a progress report on gambling in the EU to the Competiveness Council meeting of 25-26 May. The RGA welcomes the Spanish Presidency’s efforts to produce a balanced document, but argues strongly that the Council’s work in this area should not prevent the European Commission from vigorously defending the rules of the Internal Market where the gambling laws of many Member States are clearly non-compliant.
The Spanish Presidency’s progress report focuses on the definition of illegal gambling, enforcement measures, transitional periods in the context of new licensing regimes in national markets and public campaigns against so-called illegal gambling.
Unlike previous Presidencies, the Spanish authorities consulted the main stakeholders (including the RGA), whose views are presented in a separate document but not in the progress report itself. Although the RGA does not necessarily agree with all the opinions expressed in the progress report, it notes with satisfaction that the document explicitly mentions the requirement that national legislation must comply with EU law.
This report continues the work initiated by France in the Council in the 2nd half of 2008. The RGA welcomes a debate on gambling within the Council or in any other forums and the exchange of knowledge that it entails. Nevertheless, this debate (or any other in the context of a possible European Commission’s green paper on this subject) should not be used as an excuse by Member States to maintain or introduce legislation that is in breach of EU law. The Commission, should make this clear and fulfil its duty as Guardian of the Treaties by pushing on with the pending gambling-related infringements that have been opened against several Member States.
Clive Hawkswood, RGA Chief Executive, said: We understand the wish of EU countries to consider these issues collectively and we are grateful to have had the opportunity to express our views to the Spanish Presidency. However, we continue to question the added value of this debate in the Council given the lack of progress in promoting fair competition within EU markets. All of the valid concerns expressed about consumer protection can be fully addressed through appropriate regulation, but far too much of the reports so far have really been about protecting domestic markets and suppliers from competition.This would simply be unacceptable if it was any other industry, but unfortunately where gambling is concerned many Member States are more than willing to disregard the rules of the Internal Market. They will continue to do so until the European Commission takes action to stop them’.
The Spanish Presidency of the EU submitted a progress report on gambling in the EU to the Competiveness Council meeting of 25-26 May. The RGA welcomes the Spanish Presidency’s efforts to produce a balanced document, but argues strongly that the Council’s work in this area should not prevent the European Commission from vigorously defending the rules of the Internal Market where the gambling laws of many Member States are clearly non-compliant.
The Spanish Presidency’s progress report focuses on the definition of illegal gambling, enforcement measures, transitional periods in the context of new licensing regimes in national markets and public campaigns against so-called illegal gambling.
Unlike previous Presidencies, the Spanish authorities consulted the main stakeholders (including the RGA), whose views are presented in a separate document but not in the progress report itself. Although the RGA does not necessarily agree with all the opinions expressed in the progress report, it notes with satisfaction that the document explicitly mentions the requirement that national legislation must comply with EU law.
This report continues the work initiated by France in the Council in the 2nd half of 2008. The RGA welcomes a debate on gambling within the Council or in any other forums and the exchange of knowledge that it entails. Nevertheless, this debate (or any other in the context of a possible European Commission’s green paper on this subject) should not be used as an excuse by Member States to maintain or introduce legislation that is in breach of EU law. The Commission, should make this clear and fulfil its duty as Guardian of the Treaties by pushing on with the pending gambling-related infringements that have been opened against several Member States.
Clive Hawkswood, RGA Chief Executive, said: We understand the wish of EU countries to consider these issues collectively and we are grateful to have had the opportunity to express our views to the Spanish Presidency. However, we continue to question the added value of this debate in the Council given the lack of progress in promoting fair competition within EU markets. All of the valid concerns expressed about consumer protection can be fully addressed through appropriate regulation, but far too much of the reports so far have really been about protecting domestic markets and suppliers from competition.This would simply be unacceptable if it was any other industry, but unfortunately where gambling is concerned many Member States are more than willing to disregard the rules of the Internal Market. They will continue to do so until the European Commission takes action to stop them’.
Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010
Gaming and betting: Developments at the ECJ questioning market restrictions in Austria and Sweden
Brussels, 23 February 2010
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes today´s two Advocate General (AG) opinions at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in cases related to gaming and betting restrictions, respectively in Austria and Sweden.
Advocate General Mazák questions the legality of Casinos Austria licenses and its de facto monopoly
In his opinion delivered in the Austrian Casino case involving Ernst Engelmann (C-64/08) before the ECJ, Advocate General Mazák confirmed today that:
- The requirement of an establishment in Austria “is a clear example of direct discrimination against companies who are seated in another member state”. (para 55)
- “Contrary to the view of the Austrian government, [...] controls can be enforced on any company established in a member state and in addition, sanctions can be applied irrespective of the place of residence of its management”. (para 60)
- Licenses in the gaming sector must be awarded in a public and transparent manner: “Art 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national provisions […] which exclude from the tendering process candidates from the Community which do not have the nationality of that member state”. (para. 104)
- The national court has to determine whether fiscal objectives of the legislation in fact only constitute “an incidental beneficial consequence”. Should this not be the case, the monopoly regime is in violation of EU law, regardless of the level of advertising. (para 80)
- “With regard to advertising, the national court must further examine to what extent the relevant strategies of the factual monopoly holder inform the potential client merely about the existence of the products and serve the purpose of guaranteeing the client regular access to games of chance, or whether they invite and encourage the clients to an active participation in games of chance”. (para 84).
This opinion, if confirmed by the ECJ in its ruling, would sign the end of Casinos Austria’s de facto monopoly on poker and casino games, and lead to important reforms in Austria.
Austria has clear profit-driven objectives when it comes to gaming and betting, with no consistent or systematic consumer protection policy. The Austrian market has been continuously expanding with massive monopolists’ advertising expenditure. 77% of the shares of Casinos Austria are held by private shareholders, including banks and insurance companies.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA comments: “In this context, there is no acceptable justification to prevent reputable European competitors from offering online poker and casino games to Austrian players”.
Advocate General Bot confirms in joint Swedish newspapers cases that Member States must not discriminate against EU operators
These cases (C-447/08 and C- 448/08) were brought to the ECJ in the context of the advertising in two Swedish newspapers “Expressen” and “Aftonbladet“ of non-Swedish online gaming and betting operators duly licensed in other Member States. The chief editors of both newspapers are subject to criminal sanctions under Swedish law.
In his opinion, Advocate General Bot concludes that:
- “According to consistent jurisprudence, while a member state is entitled to restrict activities associated with gambling within its territory, the measures which it adopts for that purpose must not be discriminatory, even if they are based on the defense of public order”. (para. 75)
- ”Community law precludes national legislation under which […] anyone who promotes participation in internet gaming organized by a company established in another member state is liable to criminal penalties, whereas anyone who promotes participation in such gaming organized within the national territory without an authorization does not incur such penalties.” (para. 90)
EGBA welcomes the confirmation by AG Bot that Sweden must not apply discriminatory sanctions towards licensed EU operators. EGBA further notes that marketing restrictions in place in Sweden are detrimental to the national economy.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA comments: “It is remarkable that leading national newspapers, which are financed through and very much dependent on the sale of advertising, are unfairly deprived of substantial sources of revenue”.
Sigrid Ligné adds: “The marketing prohibition that applies to legal EU operators in Swedish media does not have any impact on the overall level of consumption of games of chance in Sweden. Svenska Spel and ATG conduct heavy advertising campaign throughout the territory and Swedish consumers also receive advertising from other Member States on Television”.
Dates for the rulings of the ECJ in the two above-mentioned cases have not yet been determined.
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes today´s two Advocate General (AG) opinions at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in cases related to gaming and betting restrictions, respectively in Austria and Sweden.
Advocate General Mazák questions the legality of Casinos Austria licenses and its de facto monopoly
In his opinion delivered in the Austrian Casino case involving Ernst Engelmann (C-64/08) before the ECJ, Advocate General Mazák confirmed today that:
- The requirement of an establishment in Austria “is a clear example of direct discrimination against companies who are seated in another member state”. (para 55)
- “Contrary to the view of the Austrian government, [...] controls can be enforced on any company established in a member state and in addition, sanctions can be applied irrespective of the place of residence of its management”. (para 60)
- Licenses in the gaming sector must be awarded in a public and transparent manner: “Art 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national provisions […] which exclude from the tendering process candidates from the Community which do not have the nationality of that member state”. (para. 104)
- The national court has to determine whether fiscal objectives of the legislation in fact only constitute “an incidental beneficial consequence”. Should this not be the case, the monopoly regime is in violation of EU law, regardless of the level of advertising. (para 80)
- “With regard to advertising, the national court must further examine to what extent the relevant strategies of the factual monopoly holder inform the potential client merely about the existence of the products and serve the purpose of guaranteeing the client regular access to games of chance, or whether they invite and encourage the clients to an active participation in games of chance”. (para 84).
This opinion, if confirmed by the ECJ in its ruling, would sign the end of Casinos Austria’s de facto monopoly on poker and casino games, and lead to important reforms in Austria.
Austria has clear profit-driven objectives when it comes to gaming and betting, with no consistent or systematic consumer protection policy. The Austrian market has been continuously expanding with massive monopolists’ advertising expenditure. 77% of the shares of Casinos Austria are held by private shareholders, including banks and insurance companies.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA comments: “In this context, there is no acceptable justification to prevent reputable European competitors from offering online poker and casino games to Austrian players”.
Advocate General Bot confirms in joint Swedish newspapers cases that Member States must not discriminate against EU operators
These cases (C-447/08 and C- 448/08) were brought to the ECJ in the context of the advertising in two Swedish newspapers “Expressen” and “Aftonbladet“ of non-Swedish online gaming and betting operators duly licensed in other Member States. The chief editors of both newspapers are subject to criminal sanctions under Swedish law.
In his opinion, Advocate General Bot concludes that:
- “According to consistent jurisprudence, while a member state is entitled to restrict activities associated with gambling within its territory, the measures which it adopts for that purpose must not be discriminatory, even if they are based on the defense of public order”. (para. 75)
- ”Community law precludes national legislation under which […] anyone who promotes participation in internet gaming organized by a company established in another member state is liable to criminal penalties, whereas anyone who promotes participation in such gaming organized within the national territory without an authorization does not incur such penalties.” (para. 90)
EGBA welcomes the confirmation by AG Bot that Sweden must not apply discriminatory sanctions towards licensed EU operators. EGBA further notes that marketing restrictions in place in Sweden are detrimental to the national economy.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA comments: “It is remarkable that leading national newspapers, which are financed through and very much dependent on the sale of advertising, are unfairly deprived of substantial sources of revenue”.
Sigrid Ligné adds: “The marketing prohibition that applies to legal EU operators in Swedish media does not have any impact on the overall level of consumption of games of chance in Sweden. Svenska Spel and ATG conduct heavy advertising campaign throughout the territory and Swedish consumers also receive advertising from other Member States on Television”.
Dates for the rulings of the ECJ in the two above-mentioned cases have not yet been determined.
Freitag, 19. Februar 2010
European Parliament: Online gambling - a roll of the unregulated dice?
A number of MEPs urged Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier to come up with common rules to regulate cross border online gambling in Europe. In a debate on 11 February many MEPs were concerned about the effects of gambling on minors, addiction and money laundering.
With gambling being a €70 billion industry in Europe online firms are hoping to break into this national market. This has brought tension and the European Court of Justice has upheld the right of nations to regulate online gambling.
The tension between the EU's internal market and the right of national regulators to monitor the trade lies at the heart of the legal confusion over online gambling. At present no rules on online gambling exist. Several countries have tried to ban cross-border online betting and the European Commission launched proceedings against them for flouting internal market rules. However, the court's decision to uphold a case where Portugal banned a company based in Gibraltar has shaken things up.
Join our debate online on Facebook on the issues raised in this article.
"Can and must be regulated"
Speaking in the debate Michel Barnier promised a "new approach" with a Green paper on possible policy options by the end of the year.
Thursday's debate was in response to an Oral Question tabled by five MEPs led by the Chair if the Internal Market Committee Malcolm Harbour. Speaking in the debate, the British Conservative said, "it is absolutely the right time for the Commission to be coming out with a clear strategy". He went on to say that online gambling "can be regulated and must be regulated".
However, Mr Harbour stressed the importance of giving people the right to choose: "We must also respect our citizens and the fact that many of them want to access online gambling" so "it can't be right to ban online gambling with a company from outside your own country".
States should not be forced to open markets
Andreas Schwab of the European People's Party called for "uniform cross-border solutions at the European level". The woman who steered the services directive through Parliament in 2006, German Socialist Evelyne Gebhardt called on the Commission to stop "quite improper" infringement procedures. She said "member states should not be forced to open market up if their controls are strong and effective and we want the Commission to finally understand this".
For the Greens, Heide Ruhle said that European rules should respect "European specificities".
"These are not services just like any other"
In terms of the possible legal and social dangers of gambling Dutch MEP Dennis De Jong of the leftist GUE/NGL told the House "we should limit online gambling as much as possible and we should ask the Commission not to lower the level of protection".
Speaking at the end of the debate, Mr Barnier said, "make no mistake; I have come to talk about a new approach". He went on to say "these are not services just like any other. Fighting cross-border crime without a European approach is impossible. We have to have strict limits so that minors can't play and on this we need EU coordination".
Have your say in our Facebook debate.
press release of the European Parliament
With gambling being a €70 billion industry in Europe online firms are hoping to break into this national market. This has brought tension and the European Court of Justice has upheld the right of nations to regulate online gambling.
The tension between the EU's internal market and the right of national regulators to monitor the trade lies at the heart of the legal confusion over online gambling. At present no rules on online gambling exist. Several countries have tried to ban cross-border online betting and the European Commission launched proceedings against them for flouting internal market rules. However, the court's decision to uphold a case where Portugal banned a company based in Gibraltar has shaken things up.
Join our debate online on Facebook on the issues raised in this article.
"Can and must be regulated"
Speaking in the debate Michel Barnier promised a "new approach" with a Green paper on possible policy options by the end of the year.
Thursday's debate was in response to an Oral Question tabled by five MEPs led by the Chair if the Internal Market Committee Malcolm Harbour. Speaking in the debate, the British Conservative said, "it is absolutely the right time for the Commission to be coming out with a clear strategy". He went on to say that online gambling "can be regulated and must be regulated".
However, Mr Harbour stressed the importance of giving people the right to choose: "We must also respect our citizens and the fact that many of them want to access online gambling" so "it can't be right to ban online gambling with a company from outside your own country".
States should not be forced to open markets
Andreas Schwab of the European People's Party called for "uniform cross-border solutions at the European level". The woman who steered the services directive through Parliament in 2006, German Socialist Evelyne Gebhardt called on the Commission to stop "quite improper" infringement procedures. She said "member states should not be forced to open market up if their controls are strong and effective and we want the Commission to finally understand this".
For the Greens, Heide Ruhle said that European rules should respect "European specificities".
"These are not services just like any other"
In terms of the possible legal and social dangers of gambling Dutch MEP Dennis De Jong of the leftist GUE/NGL told the House "we should limit online gambling as much as possible and we should ask the Commission not to lower the level of protection".
Speaking at the end of the debate, Mr Barnier said, "make no mistake; I have come to talk about a new approach". He went on to say "these are not services just like any other. Fighting cross-border crime without a European approach is impossible. We have to have strict limits so that minors can't play and on this we need EU coordination".
Have your say in our Facebook debate.
press release of the European Parliament
Freitag, 12. Februar 2010
Online Gaming and Betting: Barnier to take the lead
Brussels, 11 February 2010
EGBA welcomes the commitment made by the newly appointed Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier to address the situation of gaming and betting at EU level.
Addressing members of the European Parliament today, Commissioner Barnier confirmed that the analysis of the Commission Legal Service regarding the most recent European Court of Justice ruling (Santa Casa, C-42/09) does not change fundamentally the Commission’s approach towards infringement procedures. The Commissioner said that the Santa Casa ruling of 8 September 2009 was based on considerations specific to Portugal and to its national monopoly operator. The Commission will therefore continue to examine the compliance of national legislation with EU law on a case-by-case basis.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA, comments “With several Member States currently reforming their gaming and betting legislation, this is an important confirmation that the Commission will not stand by while Member States introduce restrictions that go against fundamental principles of the EU”.
She adds “We believe that the respect of Internal Market rules in our sector will promote high standards and improve the protection of players throughout the EU”.
EGBA also strongly supports the Commissioner’s intention to engage in a broad consultation with stakeholders and to work on a political document, based on reliable figures and a clear diagnosis of the situation in Europe. The Commissioner raised the prospect of a Green Paper on gambling, a move which EGBA believes could offer a real opportunity to test the interest and support of the European Parliament and Member States for future EU harmonization in the sector.
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 (0) 2 2567527
sigrid.ligne@egba.eu
EGBA welcomes the commitment made by the newly appointed Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier to address the situation of gaming and betting at EU level.
Addressing members of the European Parliament today, Commissioner Barnier confirmed that the analysis of the Commission Legal Service regarding the most recent European Court of Justice ruling (Santa Casa, C-42/09) does not change fundamentally the Commission’s approach towards infringement procedures. The Commissioner said that the Santa Casa ruling of 8 September 2009 was based on considerations specific to Portugal and to its national monopoly operator. The Commission will therefore continue to examine the compliance of national legislation with EU law on a case-by-case basis.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA, comments “With several Member States currently reforming their gaming and betting legislation, this is an important confirmation that the Commission will not stand by while Member States introduce restrictions that go against fundamental principles of the EU”.
She adds “We believe that the respect of Internal Market rules in our sector will promote high standards and improve the protection of players throughout the EU”.
EGBA also strongly supports the Commissioner’s intention to engage in a broad consultation with stakeholders and to work on a political document, based on reliable figures and a clear diagnosis of the situation in Europe. The Commissioner raised the prospect of a Green Paper on gambling, a move which EGBA believes could offer a real opportunity to test the interest and support of the European Parliament and Member States for future EU harmonization in the sector.
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 (0) 2 2567527
sigrid.ligne@egba.eu
Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010
ECJ: No exception to the primacy of EU law over national gaming legislation says Advocate General Bot
Brussels, 26 January 2010
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes today’s opinion of Advocate General (AG) Bot in the betting case involving Winner Wetten (C-409/06) before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The opinion confirms that the primacy of EU law over national gaming legislation does not allow for any exception or transitional period. AG Bot dismissed the argument of Germany and other Member States that they should be allowed to have such an exception. Member States therefore have to immediately stop applying national gaming legislation that is not consistent with EU law.
This case involves Winner Wetten, a company located in Germany, accepting bets on behalf of an online betting service provider based and licensed in Malta. The Court in Cologne asked whether governments are allowed to continue to apply for a transitional period gaming legislation that is not compatible with the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services provisions in the EU Treaty. The Cologne court considered North Rhine-Westphalia´s law on sports betting in force in 2006 to be inconsistent with the freedom to provide services as interpreted in the Gambelli ruling.
AG Bot clarified that there are no legal arguments to allow for an exception to the direct application of the Treaty to the gaming and betting sector. In addition, AG Bot confirms that it is not in the interest of consumers to maintain non EU compliant legislation that does not offer consistent and systematic protection. According to AG Bot, such ´legislation is itself inappropriate for the protection of consumers´ (para 113).
Secretary General Sigrid Ligné comments: ´This opinion is crucial for developments in Germany. The AG has made clear that EU law prevails and that unjustified restrictions are not admissible even for a transitional period. Today’s opinion will further fuel the current political debate on online gaming in Germany´.
Sigrid Ligné further adds: ´We agree with the conclusions of AG Bot. Essential is AG Bot´s confirmation that it is detrimental to consumers to have national gambling legislation that doesn’t offer consistent and systematic protection. Many Member States do not have consistent and systematic gambling legislation; this opinion clearly strengthens our argument.´
A date for the ruling of the CJEU has not yet been set.
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes today’s opinion of Advocate General (AG) Bot in the betting case involving Winner Wetten (C-409/06) before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The opinion confirms that the primacy of EU law over national gaming legislation does not allow for any exception or transitional period. AG Bot dismissed the argument of Germany and other Member States that they should be allowed to have such an exception. Member States therefore have to immediately stop applying national gaming legislation that is not consistent with EU law.
This case involves Winner Wetten, a company located in Germany, accepting bets on behalf of an online betting service provider based and licensed in Malta. The Court in Cologne asked whether governments are allowed to continue to apply for a transitional period gaming legislation that is not compatible with the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services provisions in the EU Treaty. The Cologne court considered North Rhine-Westphalia´s law on sports betting in force in 2006 to be inconsistent with the freedom to provide services as interpreted in the Gambelli ruling.
AG Bot clarified that there are no legal arguments to allow for an exception to the direct application of the Treaty to the gaming and betting sector. In addition, AG Bot confirms that it is not in the interest of consumers to maintain non EU compliant legislation that does not offer consistent and systematic protection. According to AG Bot, such ´legislation is itself inappropriate for the protection of consumers´ (para 113).
Secretary General Sigrid Ligné comments: ´This opinion is crucial for developments in Germany. The AG has made clear that EU law prevails and that unjustified restrictions are not admissible even for a transitional period. Today’s opinion will further fuel the current political debate on online gaming in Germany´.
Sigrid Ligné further adds: ´We agree with the conclusions of AG Bot. Essential is AG Bot´s confirmation that it is detrimental to consumers to have national gambling legislation that doesn’t offer consistent and systematic protection. Many Member States do not have consistent and systematic gambling legislation; this opinion clearly strengthens our argument.´
A date for the ruling of the CJEU has not yet been set.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)