Following a European arrest warrant issued by the French authorities, Petter Nylander, CEO of Unibet, a European publicly listed company has been arrested in the Netherlands on 22 October 2007. The European Gaming and Betting Association, of which Unibet is a member, strongly disapproves this action.
The arrest comes at a time, when France’s legislation on gaming is being challenged both at EU and national level. These actions by French authorities completely disregard the European Commission’s Reasoned Opinion of June 2007, which underlined the disproportionality of threatening and imposing criminal sanctions on CEOs of sports betting companies licensed in the EU. The 2007 European Court of Justice’s verdict “Placanica” confirmed that criminal proceedings brought against legitimate operators based in other EU member states are in contradiction with the EU Treaty.
With a few days to go before the expiration of the deadline to answer the Reasoned Opinion, which has already been extended by two months to allegedly facilitate dialogue and solutions between all parties, the EGBA questions the objectives of the French government today. On the one hand, France has recently and repeatedly claimed its willingness to cooperate with the European Commission, while on the other hand it enforces the same criminal sanctions as one year ago. Norbert Teufelberger, chairman of EGBA, said: “History is repeating itself. Therefore, we now urge the European Commission to adopt swift measures against France. Petter Nylander has all the support of the EGBA, and we call on French and Dutch authorities to immediately end these disproportionate sanctions. ”
press release of EGBA
26 October 2007
Legal terms explained: interstate treaty (Staatsvertrag)
by Martin Arendts
In Germany, the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) shall replace the current Interstate Treaty on Lotteries (Lotteriestaatsvertrag) on 1 January 2008. Why does Germany not simply pass a Gambling Act?
In the Federal Republic of Germany, as is officially called, the 16 German states (Länder) and the federal state (Bund) have different jurisdictions. In the past, gambling and sports betting (with the exception of horse betting) has been regulated by the states (however, the Federal Constitutional Court expressly mentioned the possibility of a new regulation by the Federal Parliament, as sports betting has to be regarded as a business matter).
Matters, falling under the jurisdiction of the states, can be regulated not only by normal state acts, but also by interstate treaties. The idea behind an interstate treaty, that is a treaty between all 16 states, is is the creation of uniform law, without giving the jurisdiction to the federal state. Interstate treaties are quite common to regulate media matters, e.g. Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag) and Interstate Treaty on Media Services (Mediendienste-Staatsvertrag). Interstate treaties have to be ratified by the state parliaments and are regarded as state law.
In Germany, the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) shall replace the current Interstate Treaty on Lotteries (Lotteriestaatsvertrag) on 1 January 2008. Why does Germany not simply pass a Gambling Act?
In the Federal Republic of Germany, as is officially called, the 16 German states (Länder) and the federal state (Bund) have different jurisdictions. In the past, gambling and sports betting (with the exception of horse betting) has been regulated by the states (however, the Federal Constitutional Court expressly mentioned the possibility of a new regulation by the Federal Parliament, as sports betting has to be regarded as a business matter).
Matters, falling under the jurisdiction of the states, can be regulated not only by normal state acts, but also by interstate treaties. The idea behind an interstate treaty, that is a treaty between all 16 states, is is the creation of uniform law, without giving the jurisdiction to the federal state. Interstate treaties are quite common to regulate media matters, e.g. Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag) and Interstate Treaty on Media Services (Mediendienste-Staatsvertrag). Interstate treaties have to be ratified by the state parliaments and are regarded as state law.
24 October 2007
Three Referrals to the ECJ from the Administrative Court of Stuttgart
References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007
(Case C-360/07)
Questions referred:
1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming - such as State-run sports betting and lotteries - and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction - such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games - may be provided by private service providers?
2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?
Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
(Case C-358/07)
SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
(Case C-359/07)
(Case C-360/07)
Questions referred:
1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming - such as State-run sports betting and lotteries - and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction - such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games - may be provided by private service providers?
2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?
Referral to the ECJ from the Administrative Court of Giessen
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen lodged on 9 July 2007 - Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis
(Case C-316/07)
Questions referred:
Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in particular because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage participation in other gaming - such as State-run lotteries and casino games - and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher suspected potential danger of addiction - such as betting on certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines - may be provided by private service providers?
Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State bodies specifically designated for that purpose by the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts also in other Member States without any additional national authorisations being required?
(Case C-316/07)
Questions referred:
Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in particular because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage participation in other gaming - such as State-run lotteries and casino games - and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher suspected potential danger of addiction - such as betting on certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines - may be provided by private service providers?
Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State bodies specifically designated for that purpose by the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts also in other Member States without any additional national authorisations being required?
18 October 2007
bwin plans retail pilot project in Spain
The sports betting law that came into effect in the province of Madrid on 7 January this year permits and regulates the operation of retail betting shops based on the UK model.
bwin has been a prime sponsor of Real Madrid since 1 July this year, and has since dramatically increased its brand awareness in Spain. A pilot retail project is now being developed in Madrid in collaboration with Betbull Plc, an experienced betting shop operator in which bwin holds a strategic investment. The final licence application will be submitted to the authorities shortly, and the first betting shop under the bwin brand is scheduled to open in Madrid in the first quarter of 2008. The pilot project is intended to show the extent to which bwin's strong brand awareness can be successfully transferred to the retail sector. Details of financing will be published once the necessary licence has been issued.
press release of bwin, 18 October 2007
bwin has been a prime sponsor of Real Madrid since 1 July this year, and has since dramatically increased its brand awareness in Spain. A pilot retail project is now being developed in Madrid in collaboration with Betbull Plc, an experienced betting shop operator in which bwin holds a strategic investment. The final licence application will be submitted to the authorities shortly, and the first betting shop under the bwin brand is scheduled to open in Madrid in the first quarter of 2008. The pilot project is intended to show the extent to which bwin's strong brand awareness can be successfully transferred to the retail sector. Details of financing will be published once the necessary licence has been issued.
press release of bwin, 18 October 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)