Judgment in Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes
In a judgment delivered today, the EFTA Court dealt with a case initiated by Ladbrokes Ltd. which is currently pending before the Oslo District Court. Established in the United Kingdom, Ladbrokes is the world’s largest bookmaker company. By its action, Ladbrokes essentially challenges the Norwegian regulation of the entire gambling and betting sector, namely (1) the Gaming Act, which establishes a monopoly for the state-owned company Norsk Tipping for the operation of games such as Lotto and sports betting; (2) the Totalisator Act, which is the legal basis for the exclusive right of operation of horserace betting granted to Norsk Rikstoto, a state-controlled foundation; and (3) the Lottery Act which provides that minor money games such as Bingo and scratch cards may only be operated by non-profit organisations and associations with a humanitarian or socially beneficial purpose. The Oslo District Court referred five questions to the EFTA Court.
The Court held that all games of chance provided in return for money payment constitute economic activities falling within the scope of EEA fundamental freedoms. A system based on an exclusive right as established under the Gaming and the Totalisator Acts, respectively, completely denies private operators access to the respective market and thus encroaches upon the freedom to provide services and the right of establishment. The same holds true for the prohibition on granting commercial operators permission to operate lotteries under the Lottery Act.
In order to be justified, the Norwegian legislation needs to be based on legitimate reasons of overriding general interest. In that respect, the Court accepted the aim of fighting gambling addiction and crime and malpractice as being legitimate. In order to be lawfully based on the aim of fighting gambling addiction, legislation must, however, reflect a concern to bring about a genuine diminution in gambling opportunities. The motive of financing benevolent or public-interest activities cannot in itself be regarded as an objective justification for restrictions on free movement. The aim of preventing gambling from being a source of private profit can serve as justification only if the legislation reflects a moral concern; if a state-owned monopoly is allowed to offer a range of gambling opportunities, the legislation at issue cannot be said to genuinely pursue this aim. Under the allocation of competences between the EFTA Court and the national court, it is for the latter to verify whether the Norwegian legislation may indeed be justified by legitimate objectives. With respect to the Totalisator Act, the EFTA Court noted that the legislative aim of financing the commercial breeding of horses does not qualify as a legitimate reason in the public interest.
To the extent Norwegian legislation is found to pursue legitimate aims, the national court must consider whether the Norwegian legislation at issue is proportionate. Whilst the states are free to define the level of protection sought, the policy pursued would be inconsistent if the state took, facilitated or tolerated other measures which run counter to the objectives pursued. In the context of the Gaming Act, it is the marketing activities and the development of new games by Norsk Tipping in particular that are relevant when assessing consistency.
Finally, the national court was instructed that it must examine whether the legislation at issue goes beyond what is necessary to meet the aims pursued. Again, the level of protection chosen by the Norwegian authorities is decisive. Where other, less restrictive measures would have the effect of fully achieving the objectives at the level of protection chosen, an exclusive rights system could not be considered necessary simply because it might offer an even higher level of protection. In order to carry out its assessment, the national court must ascertain whether and to which extent there are genuine risks arising from or connected to the different games of chance. It will also have to examine whether Norsk Tipping has less economic incentives to breach the applicable rules, or less of an interest in an aggressive marketing strategy than a commercial operator under a licensing system.
In answering an additional question posed by the national court, the EFTA Court finally held that to the extent the national court concludes that the restrictions entailed by the three Acts in question are lawful, the State also has the right to prohibit the providing and marketing of games of chance from abroad, no matter whether or not these are lawful in their State of origin. To the extent the national court finds that the bans implied in the three Acts on commercial operators organising any form of gambling are not justified, the Norwegian State may still require foreign operators to seek a national licence under the same conditions as apply to domestic operators. This would, however, be excessive if the company in question already held a licence issued by its home state and the requirements to which the issue of a licence is subject coincided with the requirements already fulfilled in that latter state.
The full text of the judgment may be found on the Internet at: www.eftacourt.lu.
This press release is not an official document. Please note that the Court may not comment on the case.
press release of the EFTA Court
30 May 2007
bwin: Judgement by EFTA Court underlines narrow limits for gaming monopolies in Europe
The EFTA Court today passed down a further judgement on the Norwegian gaming monopoly. The court was called upon to decide whether monopolies were admissible for horse betting, sports betting and lotteries.
The reasoning behind the EFTA Court's judgement is entirely in line with the judgements by the European Court of Justice in the Gambelli and Placanica cases. According to these judgements, a monopoly may be permissible if a country's entire gaming policy is consistently designed to reduce gaming opportunities. Besides, any measures introduced by a government must also be necessary, proportionate and coherent. In this context, the court also laid down detailed criteria, stating that the burden of proof lay with each member state.
The court also went on to emphasize that an international provider cannot be denied access to any market if that country's monopolistic system is neither appropriate, proportionate nor necessary.
"The court's judgement confirms the criticism already expressed by the European Commission of the national restrictions that still exist in some cases," commented Norbert Teufelberger, bwin Co-CEO. "As long as national legislators are unable to agree on uniform pan-European regulations for the gaming market, national regulations will continue to be evaluated in the light of the freedoms of establishment and services anchored in the Treaty on European Community and the prohibition of discrimination."
The bwin Group has over 11 million registered customers (including 7 million "play money" customers) in over 20 core target markets. Operating under international and regional licences in countries like Gibraltar, Kahnawake (Canada), Belize and Germany, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Austria and the United Kingdom, the Group is the number one address for sports betting, games and entertainment via digital distribution channels. The Group offers sports betting, poker, casino games, soft and skill games, as well as audio and video streams on top sporting events such as the German Bundesliga. The parent company, bwin Interactive Entertainment AG, has been listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange since March 2000 (ID code "BWIN", Reuters ID code "BWIN.VI"). All details about the company can be found on its investor relations website at www.bwin.ag.
press release of bwin
The reasoning behind the EFTA Court's judgement is entirely in line with the judgements by the European Court of Justice in the Gambelli and Placanica cases. According to these judgements, a monopoly may be permissible if a country's entire gaming policy is consistently designed to reduce gaming opportunities. Besides, any measures introduced by a government must also be necessary, proportionate and coherent. In this context, the court also laid down detailed criteria, stating that the burden of proof lay with each member state.
The court also went on to emphasize that an international provider cannot be denied access to any market if that country's monopolistic system is neither appropriate, proportionate nor necessary.
"The court's judgement confirms the criticism already expressed by the European Commission of the national restrictions that still exist in some cases," commented Norbert Teufelberger, bwin Co-CEO. "As long as national legislators are unable to agree on uniform pan-European regulations for the gaming market, national regulations will continue to be evaluated in the light of the freedoms of establishment and services anchored in the Treaty on European Community and the prohibition of discrimination."
The bwin Group has over 11 million registered customers (including 7 million "play money" customers) in over 20 core target markets. Operating under international and regional licences in countries like Gibraltar, Kahnawake (Canada), Belize and Germany, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Austria and the United Kingdom, the Group is the number one address for sports betting, games and entertainment via digital distribution channels. The Group offers sports betting, poker, casino games, soft and skill games, as well as audio and video streams on top sporting events such as the German Bundesliga. The parent company, bwin Interactive Entertainment AG, has been listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange since March 2000 (ID code "BWIN", Reuters ID code "BWIN.VI"). All details about the company can be found on its investor relations website at www.bwin.ag.
press release of bwin
EFTA Court pronounces Ladbrokes decision
The EFTA Court delivered its judgement in Case E-3/06 (Ladbrokes Ltd. v Staten v/Kultur- og kirkedepartementet and Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartementet) in open Court today. The Court decided:
1.–3. In order not to be precluded by Articles 31 and 36 EEA, national legislation which establishes (1) that certain forms of gaming may only be offered by a State-owned gaming company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes, (2) that a licence to offer horserace betting may only be granted to non-profit organisations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding, or (3) that licences to offer certain forms of gaming may only be granted to non-profit organisations and associations with a humanitarian or socially beneficial purpose, must pursue legitimate aims such as fighting gambling addiction and maintaining public order. The legitimate aims must be pursued in a suitable and consistent manner, and the legislation must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the aims in question.
4. Under EEA law, the financing of humanitarian and socially beneficial purposes may not constitute the real justification for legislation such as the legislation at issue, but only a beneficial consequence which is incidental, in the meaning that it is accessory. Preventing private profit as an aim in itself may, on the other hand, in principle justify such legislation. However, the national gaming policy must then reflect the moral concerns underlying this aim.
5. Under Article 36 EEA, to the extent the national court concludes that the exclusive rights systems established under the Gaming Act and the Totalisator Act constitute lawful restrictions, national authorities have the right to ban the provision and marketing of games of chance from abroad, no matter whether or not these are lawful in their State of origin. The same applies to the extent the national court concludes that the exclusion of commercial operators under the Lottery Act constitutes a lawful restriction on the free movement of services.
To the extent the national court comes to the conclusion that the bans implied in the three Acts on commercial operators organising any form of game of chance are not justified, the answer must be that a licence may still be required in view of possible differences in the level of protection throughout the EEA. However, national measures must not be excessive in relation to the aims pursued. They have to be non-discriminatory and must take into account the requirements already fulfilled by the provider of the services for the pursuit of activities in the home State.
1.–3. In order not to be precluded by Articles 31 and 36 EEA, national legislation which establishes (1) that certain forms of gaming may only be offered by a State-owned gaming company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes, (2) that a licence to offer horserace betting may only be granted to non-profit organisations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding, or (3) that licences to offer certain forms of gaming may only be granted to non-profit organisations and associations with a humanitarian or socially beneficial purpose, must pursue legitimate aims such as fighting gambling addiction and maintaining public order. The legitimate aims must be pursued in a suitable and consistent manner, and the legislation must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the aims in question.
4. Under EEA law, the financing of humanitarian and socially beneficial purposes may not constitute the real justification for legislation such as the legislation at issue, but only a beneficial consequence which is incidental, in the meaning that it is accessory. Preventing private profit as an aim in itself may, on the other hand, in principle justify such legislation. However, the national gaming policy must then reflect the moral concerns underlying this aim.
5. Under Article 36 EEA, to the extent the national court concludes that the exclusive rights systems established under the Gaming Act and the Totalisator Act constitute lawful restrictions, national authorities have the right to ban the provision and marketing of games of chance from abroad, no matter whether or not these are lawful in their State of origin. The same applies to the extent the national court concludes that the exclusion of commercial operators under the Lottery Act constitutes a lawful restriction on the free movement of services.
To the extent the national court comes to the conclusion that the bans implied in the three Acts on commercial operators organising any form of game of chance are not justified, the answer must be that a licence may still be required in view of possible differences in the level of protection throughout the EEA. However, national measures must not be excessive in relation to the aims pursued. They have to be non-discriminatory and must take into account the requirements already fulfilled by the provider of the services for the pursuit of activities in the home State.
26 May 2007
State Monopolies: ECJ examines sports betting in Germany and Portugal
World Online Gaming Law Report, April 2007 (Volume 6 Issue 4)
Courts in Germany and Portugal have recently referred cases concerning sports betting monopolies to the European Court of Justice. Martin Arendts, Attorney at Law with Arendts Anwälte, explains how these cases give the ECJ a further chance to clarify the law regarding state monopolies, following its rulings in the Italian cases of Zenatti, Gambelli and Placanica.
Open questions
In its Placanica decision of 6 March 20071, the ECJ ruled that it is inconsistent with Community law to criminally sanction the cross-border provision of sports betting. However, several questions remained open. National courts still argue under what circumstances a monopoly with regard to sports betting can be upheld under Community law, after Italy opted for a licensing concept. Therefore, several German courts drew the conclusion that they do not have to take the Placanica reasoning into consideration at all2. In his opinion on the Placanica case, the Advocate General Colomer hinted to the country of origin principle, by arguing: 'Therefore, if an operator from another Member State meets the requirements applicable in that State, the national authorities of the Member State in which the service is provided should accept that as a sufficient guarantee of the integrity of the operator3'. In its judgment, the ECJ already held the Italian regulation to be inconsistent, so it did not take a stand on this argument.
References for preliminary rulings by the ECJ
Now, it is for the ECJ to decide these open questions. A Portuguese court, the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto, has referred key questions on the compatibility of gambling monopolies under Community law to the ECJ (Case C-42/07).
The background of this case is an ongoing dispute between the Portuguese monopoly operator, Santa Casa da Misericordia de Lisboa, and Gibraltar-based Baw International Ltd (a subsidiary of listed company, bwin). The dispute revolves around Baw's existing sponsorship of the Portuguese professional football league (Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional), which Santa Casa has tried to have annulled by Portuguese courts, claiming that the sponsorship contravenes Portuguese advertising law. Portugal's advertising code specifically states that the advertising of games of chance is prohibited, except for games developed by Santa Casa. Baw International Ltd, along with the Liga Portuguesa, to whom Bwin's sponsorship is worth up to €10 million over the next four years, brought forward that Santa Casa's privileged position as a monopoly operator of all lottery, betting and internet games contravenes Community law.
As well as being certain to make an impact in Portugal, the questions the Porto court has referred to the ECJ are of great interest in a broader European context.
The court referred the following:
- Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?
- Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings, first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to 'the entire national territory, including ... the internet'?
Separately, the Administrative Court of Giessen in Germany referred a German sports betting case to the ECJ4. Last year, the Administrative Court of Cologne had referred a first case to Luxemburg5. However, this case (C-409/06 - Winner Wetten) only deals with the temporary suspension of the basic freedoms, guaranteed by the EC Treaty, with regard to sports betting (as the Administrative Court of Appeal of North Rhine-Westphalia openly suspended the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in more than 200 cases concerning betting shops).
The new German case has a much broader scope. On the one hand, the German court explicitly asked the ECJ whether a sports betting monopoly is consistent with Community law, if the authorities encourage the participation in gambling and if private operators are allowed to offer gambling services with equal or even higher risks compared with sports betting, e.g. horse betting, slot machines or casinos. On the other hand, the German court wants to know if operators from other Member States can rely on their foreign license, as the German regulations do not provide for a licensing procedure consistent with the requirements of Community law.
Possible consequences of the upcoming decisions
Both the German and Portuguese cases require the ECJ to explicate under what circumstances and requirements a national monopoly can be upheld, effectively excluding operators licensed in other EU Member States. Should an operator licensed in one Member State be allowed to offer its services throughout the EU? If the answer is 'Yes', the existing national monopolies will probably not survive.
I expect the ECJ to further develop the consistency test and to question the coherency of national regulations. In this context, the ECJ will have to answer whether it is contrary to Community law for a Member State to extend a monopoly to the internet. Most of Europe's more embattled monopoly operators have gone online, including Française des Jeux, Svenska Spel and Holland Casino. German state lottery companies proposed last year to uphold their monopolies and to avoid anti-trust law problems by shutting down the use of the internet for all gambling services. The draft of the new German Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspiel-Staatsvertrag) provides for a complete ban of the provision and advertising over the internet. However, the European Commission, in a formal letter to the German government, has already declared this ban to be inconsistent with Community law. In this context, the ECJ might also exemplify whether it is against Community law to blacklist websites of operators licensed in other Member States (as Italy already tried to do with Maltese websites).
It is also interesting to note that the Portuguese court not only referred to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment (as in the previous cases), but also to the free movement of payments. Taking the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) as a model, several Member States are planning to restrict and block payments to foreign sports betting and gambling operators. In Germany, the draft of the new Interstate Treaty explicitly addresses payment solutions.
It is not very likely that the ECJ will accept this. It is also likely that the ECJ will disapprove the theory, brought forward by the Administrative Court of Appeal of North RhineWestphalia and followed by some German courts, that national courts are entitled to suspend the basic freedoms, simply by arguing with stability of the law and a loophole in the law.
Martin Arendts
Attorney at Law
Arendts Anwälte
martin.arendts@anlageanwalt.de
footnotes:
1. Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04.
2. For example, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Rhineland-Palatia (Oberverwaltungsgericht RheinlandPfalz), decision of 2 May 2007, file-no. 6 B 10118/07.OVG.
3. Opinion of Advocate General Colomer, delivered on 16 May 2006, paragraph 130.
4. Administrative Court of Giessen, decision of 7 May 2007, file-no. 10 E 13/07.
5. Adminstrative Court of Cologne, decision of 21 September 2006, file-no. 1 K 5910/05.
Courts in Germany and Portugal have recently referred cases concerning sports betting monopolies to the European Court of Justice. Martin Arendts, Attorney at Law with Arendts Anwälte, explains how these cases give the ECJ a further chance to clarify the law regarding state monopolies, following its rulings in the Italian cases of Zenatti, Gambelli and Placanica.
Open questions
In its Placanica decision of 6 March 20071, the ECJ ruled that it is inconsistent with Community law to criminally sanction the cross-border provision of sports betting. However, several questions remained open. National courts still argue under what circumstances a monopoly with regard to sports betting can be upheld under Community law, after Italy opted for a licensing concept. Therefore, several German courts drew the conclusion that they do not have to take the Placanica reasoning into consideration at all2. In his opinion on the Placanica case, the Advocate General Colomer hinted to the country of origin principle, by arguing: 'Therefore, if an operator from another Member State meets the requirements applicable in that State, the national authorities of the Member State in which the service is provided should accept that as a sufficient guarantee of the integrity of the operator3'. In its judgment, the ECJ already held the Italian regulation to be inconsistent, so it did not take a stand on this argument.
References for preliminary rulings by the ECJ
Now, it is for the ECJ to decide these open questions. A Portuguese court, the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto, has referred key questions on the compatibility of gambling monopolies under Community law to the ECJ (Case C-42/07).
The background of this case is an ongoing dispute between the Portuguese monopoly operator, Santa Casa da Misericordia de Lisboa, and Gibraltar-based Baw International Ltd (a subsidiary of listed company, bwin). The dispute revolves around Baw's existing sponsorship of the Portuguese professional football league (Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional), which Santa Casa has tried to have annulled by Portuguese courts, claiming that the sponsorship contravenes Portuguese advertising law. Portugal's advertising code specifically states that the advertising of games of chance is prohibited, except for games developed by Santa Casa. Baw International Ltd, along with the Liga Portuguesa, to whom Bwin's sponsorship is worth up to €10 million over the next four years, brought forward that Santa Casa's privileged position as a monopoly operator of all lottery, betting and internet games contravenes Community law.
As well as being certain to make an impact in Portugal, the questions the Porto court has referred to the ECJ are of great interest in a broader European context.
The court referred the following:
- Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?
- Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings, first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to 'the entire national territory, including ... the internet'?
Separately, the Administrative Court of Giessen in Germany referred a German sports betting case to the ECJ4. Last year, the Administrative Court of Cologne had referred a first case to Luxemburg5. However, this case (C-409/06 - Winner Wetten) only deals with the temporary suspension of the basic freedoms, guaranteed by the EC Treaty, with regard to sports betting (as the Administrative Court of Appeal of North Rhine-Westphalia openly suspended the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in more than 200 cases concerning betting shops).
The new German case has a much broader scope. On the one hand, the German court explicitly asked the ECJ whether a sports betting monopoly is consistent with Community law, if the authorities encourage the participation in gambling and if private operators are allowed to offer gambling services with equal or even higher risks compared with sports betting, e.g. horse betting, slot machines or casinos. On the other hand, the German court wants to know if operators from other Member States can rely on their foreign license, as the German regulations do not provide for a licensing procedure consistent with the requirements of Community law.
Possible consequences of the upcoming decisions
Both the German and Portuguese cases require the ECJ to explicate under what circumstances and requirements a national monopoly can be upheld, effectively excluding operators licensed in other EU Member States. Should an operator licensed in one Member State be allowed to offer its services throughout the EU? If the answer is 'Yes', the existing national monopolies will probably not survive.
I expect the ECJ to further develop the consistency test and to question the coherency of national regulations. In this context, the ECJ will have to answer whether it is contrary to Community law for a Member State to extend a monopoly to the internet. Most of Europe's more embattled monopoly operators have gone online, including Française des Jeux, Svenska Spel and Holland Casino. German state lottery companies proposed last year to uphold their monopolies and to avoid anti-trust law problems by shutting down the use of the internet for all gambling services. The draft of the new German Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspiel-Staatsvertrag) provides for a complete ban of the provision and advertising over the internet. However, the European Commission, in a formal letter to the German government, has already declared this ban to be inconsistent with Community law. In this context, the ECJ might also exemplify whether it is against Community law to blacklist websites of operators licensed in other Member States (as Italy already tried to do with Maltese websites).
It is also interesting to note that the Portuguese court not only referred to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment (as in the previous cases), but also to the free movement of payments. Taking the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) as a model, several Member States are planning to restrict and block payments to foreign sports betting and gambling operators. In Germany, the draft of the new Interstate Treaty explicitly addresses payment solutions.
It is not very likely that the ECJ will accept this. It is also likely that the ECJ will disapprove the theory, brought forward by the Administrative Court of Appeal of North RhineWestphalia and followed by some German courts, that national courts are entitled to suspend the basic freedoms, simply by arguing with stability of the law and a loophole in the law.
Martin Arendts
Attorney at Law
Arendts Anwälte
martin.arendts@anlageanwalt.de
footnotes:
1. Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04.
2. For example, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Rhineland-Palatia (Oberverwaltungsgericht RheinlandPfalz), decision of 2 May 2007, file-no. 6 B 10118/07.OVG.
3. Opinion of Advocate General Colomer, delivered on 16 May 2006, paragraph 130.
4. Administrative Court of Giessen, decision of 7 May 2007, file-no. 10 E 13/07.
5. Adminstrative Court of Cologne, decision of 21 September 2006, file-no. 1 K 5910/05.
22 May 2007
EFTA Court decides on gambling monopoly
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The EFTA Court will deliver its judgement in the Ladbrokes case on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 at 15:00 hrs. In this case regarding the British bookmaker Ladbrokers Ltd. against two Norwegian government departments, the Oslo District Court (Oslo Tingrett) requested an Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court on several questions.
The relevant provisions of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement correspond with those of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the decision to be rendered in this case (Case E-3/06) is of significant importance for the European Union as well. Several EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands) have filed briefs with the court.
The EFTA Court will decide on the following five questions regarding the legality of a state monopoly and the freedom to provide gaming services:
1. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that certain forms of gaming may only be offered by a State-owned gambling company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes?
2. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licences to offer horserace betting may only be granted to non-profit organisations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding?
3. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licences to certain forms of gaming may only be granted to non-profit organisations and associations with a humanitarian or socially beneficial purpose?
4. Under EEA law, is it legitimate for national legislation to emphasise that the profit from gaming should go to humanitarian and socially beneficial purposes (including sports and culture), and not to be a source of private profit?
5. Does EEA Article 36 preclude a national statutory provision which forbids the providing and marketing of gaming which is not permitted in Norway, but which approved under national law in another EEA State?
The EFTA Court will deliver its judgement in the Ladbrokes case on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 at 15:00 hrs. In this case regarding the British bookmaker Ladbrokers Ltd. against two Norwegian government departments, the Oslo District Court (Oslo Tingrett) requested an Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court on several questions.
The relevant provisions of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement correspond with those of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the decision to be rendered in this case (Case E-3/06) is of significant importance for the European Union as well. Several EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands) have filed briefs with the court.
The EFTA Court will decide on the following five questions regarding the legality of a state monopoly and the freedom to provide gaming services:
1. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that certain forms of gaming may only be offered by a State-owned gambling company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes?
2. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licences to offer horserace betting may only be granted to non-profit organisations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding?
3. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licences to certain forms of gaming may only be granted to non-profit organisations and associations with a humanitarian or socially beneficial purpose?
4. Under EEA law, is it legitimate for national legislation to emphasise that the profit from gaming should go to humanitarian and socially beneficial purposes (including sports and culture), and not to be a source of private profit?
5. Does EEA Article 36 preclude a national statutory provision which forbids the providing and marketing of gaming which is not permitted in Norway, but which approved under national law in another EEA State?
21 May 2007
Yahoo! and Eurosport have launched co-branded websites
Yahoo! and Eurosport have launched co-branded websites in four European markets dedicated to online sports news and community interaction.
The websites will operate in the UK and Ireland, Germany, Spain and Italy and combine Eurosport’s content and sports editorial with Yahoo!´s social media platform.
The new sites will be promoted on both Eurosport channels as well as on Yahoo! across all four markets.
“Together we're able to satisfy fans´ passion for sport by building user communities of interest around unrivalled high-quality professional content.’ said Javier Rodriguez Zapatero, Vice President Sales, Yahoo! Europe.
The new websites will offer numerous opportunities for advertisers, added Laurent Eric Le Lay, Chairman and CEO of Eurosport. “We are building a powerhouse that integrates both Eurosport and Yahoo! resources to provide a better user experience and a highly attractive, continent-wide audience for advertisers in an unrivalled on air/online cross media offer,” he said.
The co-branded sites are at: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com, http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com, http://es.eurosport.yahoo.com and http://it.eurosport.yahoo.com
sportbusiness.com
The websites will operate in the UK and Ireland, Germany, Spain and Italy and combine Eurosport’s content and sports editorial with Yahoo!´s social media platform.
The new sites will be promoted on both Eurosport channels as well as on Yahoo! across all four markets.
“Together we're able to satisfy fans´ passion for sport by building user communities of interest around unrivalled high-quality professional content.’ said Javier Rodriguez Zapatero, Vice President Sales, Yahoo! Europe.
The new websites will offer numerous opportunities for advertisers, added Laurent Eric Le Lay, Chairman and CEO of Eurosport. “We are building a powerhouse that integrates both Eurosport and Yahoo! resources to provide a better user experience and a highly attractive, continent-wide audience for advertisers in an unrivalled on air/online cross media offer,” he said.
The co-branded sites are at: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com, http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com, http://es.eurosport.yahoo.com and http://it.eurosport.yahoo.com
sportbusiness.com
10 May 2007
Portuguese court refers sports betting case to European Court of Justice
A Portuguese court, Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto, has referred a sport betting case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The proceeding is dealt by the ECJ as Case C-42/07.
Parties to the main proceedings are Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd as applicants and Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa as defendant.
The Portuguese court referred following questions to the ECJ:
1. Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?
2. Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including … the internet’?
Parties to the main proceedings are Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd as applicants and Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa as defendant.
The Portuguese court referred following questions to the ECJ:
1. Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?
2. Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including … the internet’?
09 May 2007
Nationalisation of Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz?
The state government of Rhineland-Palatia, one of the 16 German states (Länder), announced plans to nationalise Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH. Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH is the monopoly operator of lotteries and sports betting in Rhineland-Palatia and a member of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock, the cartel of the monopoly operators in Germany.
Until now, Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH is not owned by the state (unlike the other 15 monopoly operators), but by three state sports associations. The state government wants to change this in order to avoid a tendering procedure. In a recent letter to the German government, the EU Commission complained that there was no public invitation to tender.
Until now, Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH is not owned by the state (unlike the other 15 monopoly operators), but by three state sports associations. The state government wants to change this in order to avoid a tendering procedure. In a recent letter to the German government, the EU Commission complained that there was no public invitation to tender.
08 May 2007
German court refers sports betting case to the European Court of Justice
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
Yesterday, the Administrative Court of Gießen referred a second German sports betting case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) according to Art. 234 EC Treaty (decision of 7 May 2007, file-no. 10 E 13/07).
Recently, the Administrative Court of Cologne had referred a first case to the ECJ (decision of 21 September 2006, file-no. 1 K 5910/05). However, this case (C-409/06 – Winner Wetten) only deals with the temporary suspension of the basic freedoms, guaranteed by the EC Treaty, with regard to sports betting (as the Administrative Court of Appeal of North Rhine-Westphalia openly suspended the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in more than 200 court cases concerning betting shops).
The new case has a much broader scope. On the on hand side, the Administrative Court of Gießen asked the ECJ whether a sports betting monopoly is consistent with Community law, if the authorities encourage the participation in gambling and if private operators are allowed to offer gambling services with equal or even higher risks compared with sports betting, e.g. horse betting, slot machines or casinos. On the other hand, the German court wants to know, if operators from other Member States can rely on their foreign license, as the German regulations does not provide for a licensing procedure consistent with the requirements of Community law.
Yesterday, the Administrative Court of Gießen referred a second German sports betting case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) according to Art. 234 EC Treaty (decision of 7 May 2007, file-no. 10 E 13/07).
Recently, the Administrative Court of Cologne had referred a first case to the ECJ (decision of 21 September 2006, file-no. 1 K 5910/05). However, this case (C-409/06 – Winner Wetten) only deals with the temporary suspension of the basic freedoms, guaranteed by the EC Treaty, with regard to sports betting (as the Administrative Court of Appeal of North Rhine-Westphalia openly suspended the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in more than 200 court cases concerning betting shops).
The new case has a much broader scope. On the on hand side, the Administrative Court of Gießen asked the ECJ whether a sports betting monopoly is consistent with Community law, if the authorities encourage the participation in gambling and if private operators are allowed to offer gambling services with equal or even higher risks compared with sports betting, e.g. horse betting, slot machines or casinos. On the other hand, the German court wants to know, if operators from other Member States can rely on their foreign license, as the German regulations does not provide for a licensing procedure consistent with the requirements of Community law.
bwin Video Webcast on 15 May 2007
bwin cordially invites you to participate in the online presentation following the publication of the first quarter 2007. The presentation will be simultaneously transmitted in English.
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Time: 9.30 - 9.45 a.m. CET (3.30 - 3.45 a.m. EST)
Webcast: www.bwin.ag
The presentation will be held by Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin.
N.B.: To participate via the Internet, you need Windows Media Player. Please remember to install the necessary software in time before transmission begins.
(Download: Media Player®)
A recording of the Webcast will be available in German and English on the bwin Investor Relations website at www.bwin.ag and www.ots.at about one hour after the presentation has ended.
The bwin Group has over 11 million registered customers (including 7 million play money customers) in over 20 core target markets. Operating under international and regional licences in countries like Gibraltar, Kahnawake (Canada), Belize and Germany, Italy, Mexico, Austria and the United Kingdom, the Group has set itself the goal of becoming the number one address for sports betting, games and entertainment via digital distribution channels. The Group offers sports betting, poker, casino games, soft and skill games, as well as audio and video streams on top sporting events such as the German Bundesliga. The parent company bwin Interactive Entertainment AG has been listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange since March 2000 (ID code BWIN, Reuters ID code BWIN.VI). Further information about the Company can be found on its investor relations website at www.bwin.ag.
press release bwin
Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Time: 9.30 - 9.45 a.m. CET (3.30 - 3.45 a.m. EST)
Webcast: www.bwin.ag
The presentation will be held by Norbert Teufelberger, Co-CEO of bwin.
N.B.: To participate via the Internet, you need Windows Media Player. Please remember to install the necessary software in time before transmission begins.
(Download: Media Player®)
A recording of the Webcast will be available in German and English on the bwin Investor Relations website at www.bwin.ag and www.ots.at about one hour after the presentation has ended.
The bwin Group has over 11 million registered customers (including 7 million play money customers) in over 20 core target markets. Operating under international and regional licences in countries like Gibraltar, Kahnawake (Canada), Belize and Germany, Italy, Mexico, Austria and the United Kingdom, the Group has set itself the goal of becoming the number one address for sports betting, games and entertainment via digital distribution channels. The Group offers sports betting, poker, casino games, soft and skill games, as well as audio and video streams on top sporting events such as the German Bundesliga. The parent company bwin Interactive Entertainment AG has been listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange since March 2000 (ID code BWIN, Reuters ID code BWIN.VI). Further information about the Company can be found on its investor relations website at www.bwin.ag.
press release bwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)