Key stakeholders from across the online gaming industry spoke with one voice at the inaugural ‘Responsible Gaming Day’ event at the European Parliament yesterday, calling on the EU for greater cooperation to ensure a safer and more secure online gaming environment for consumers.
The event, the first of its kind to be hosted at the European Parliament, saw a number of MEPs, the EU Slovenian Presidency, regulators and academics join leading industry representatives to exchange best practices and knowledge in the field of responsible gaming.
Norbert Teufelberger, Chairman of the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) said: “No matter how much we do, no matter how many rules we put into place, and no matter how good we are – no solution will be optimal if it is not inclusive and based on the full cooperation and commitment of all stakeholders.”
Christofer Fjellner, MEP (EPP-DE, Sweden) added, “The key ticket to entering national markets is consumer protection. Using this as an argument to protect monopolies is simply letting consumers down.”
Protection of minors was also a key focus of yesterday’s discussions. Andrew Poole, Managing Director, GamCare commented: “There needs to be shared responsibility to minimise underage gaming. Consistent regulation across jurisdictions and proper education are key in achieving an effective industry-wide response to underage gaming.” This view was echoed by Leon Thomas, Head of Regulatory Compliance at PartyGaming who stated “We want governments to help us help consumers.”
The event also featured academia specialised in gaming and betting behaviour research who emphasised the need to use scientific research rather than conjecture when talking about online problem gaming. Richard LaBrie, Ed. D. Harvard Medical School commented: “The advantage of online gaming is that you can track data in real time rather than relying on self reports, which may lack reliability.”
You can find more details of the event on: www.ResponsibleGamingDay.eu
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 (0) 2 256 7527
sigrid.ligne@egba.eu
The EGBA is an association of the leading European gaming and betting operators Bet-at-home.com, bwin, Digibet, Carmen Media Group, Expekt, Interwetten, PartyGaming and Unibet. EGBA is a Brussels-based nonprofit making association. It promotes the right of private gaming and betting operators that are regulated and licensed in one Member State to a fair market access throughout the European Union.
www.egba.eu
21 April 2008
18 April 2008
Administrative Court of Munich once again grants relief from judicial execution of a prohibition order
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The Bavarian Adminstrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) has once again granted relief from judicial execution to a sports betting agent, this time against a prohibition order of the Free State of Bavaria (decision of 7 April 2008, file-no. M 16 08.1128). The agent, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE law firm (www.wettrecht.de), can therefore continue to transfer sports betting wagers to a privately owned bookmaker, licensed in the EU. As already mentioned in German Gaming Law updated no. 99, the Administrative Court of Munich has recently changed its existing line of reasoning and, in view of the outcome in the main issue, which it regards to be open, now grants relief from judicial execution to agents with the nationality of an EU member state.
In the opinion of the Administrative Court of Munich, the main proceedings will have to establish whether the normative standards under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its Bavarian implementing laws as well as the measures adopted by the Bavarian State Government complied with the ECJ’s requirements for fundamental rights limiting “gambling policies”. The Administrative Court of Munich enjoined the sports betting agent to file for a license. One could reasonably expect from the sports betting agent – this being sufficient at the same time – to make an effort in order to obtain a license and, if need be, to seek judicial clarification after the proceedings of interference (administrative proceedings reviewing an individual administrative decision upon a protest by the party aggrieved) had ended.
from: German Gaming Law updated No. 100
The Bavarian Adminstrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) has once again granted relief from judicial execution to a sports betting agent, this time against a prohibition order of the Free State of Bavaria (decision of 7 April 2008, file-no. M 16 08.1128). The agent, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE law firm (www.wettrecht.de), can therefore continue to transfer sports betting wagers to a privately owned bookmaker, licensed in the EU. As already mentioned in German Gaming Law updated no. 99, the Administrative Court of Munich has recently changed its existing line of reasoning and, in view of the outcome in the main issue, which it regards to be open, now grants relief from judicial execution to agents with the nationality of an EU member state.
In the opinion of the Administrative Court of Munich, the main proceedings will have to establish whether the normative standards under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its Bavarian implementing laws as well as the measures adopted by the Bavarian State Government complied with the ECJ’s requirements for fundamental rights limiting “gambling policies”. The Administrative Court of Munich enjoined the sports betting agent to file for a license. One could reasonably expect from the sports betting agent – this being sufficient at the same time – to make an effort in order to obtain a license and, if need be, to seek judicial clarification after the proceedings of interference (administrative proceedings reviewing an individual administrative decision upon a protest by the party aggrieved) had ended.
from: German Gaming Law updated No. 100
County Court of Porto refers sponsoring by bwin to the European Court of Justice
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The County Court of Porto (Tribunal Judicial de Comarca do Porto) has referred a Portuguese sports betting case concerning the listed bookmaker bwin to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The proceedings, there registered as Case C-55/08, are the eleventh proceedings concerning the freedom to provide services with regards to sports betting and other games of chance (where eight proceedings from Germany alone are pending, which of the six proceedings of the Administrative Courts of Stuttgart and Giessen were already joined in the course of the last years; concerning the proceedings pending so far, see Arendts, Zeitschrift für Wett- und Glücksspielrecht (ZfWG) 2007, pages 347 et sq.). In its questions referred to the ECJ, the County Court of Porto, in addition to questions concerning the freedom to provide services also raises questions with regards to Community law rules on competition and the prohibition of state monopolies.
The parties of the initial proceedings are the same as the ones of the proceedings already pending since last year registered as Case C-42/07 (cf. German Gaming Law updated No. 79), but with inverted procedural roles. The plaintiff of the current proceedings is Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML). SCML is exclusively entitled to operate lotteries and games of chance similar to lotteries under Portuguese law. The defendants it sued are the Portuguese Football League (Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and two bwin companies (the main company of the group being listed on the stock exchange, the affiliated company sued here holding a Gibraltar license). The matter in dispute is the bookmaker’s sponsoring contract with the Portuguese Football League.
The County Court of Porto referred three questions to the ECJ:
• It wants to have clarified, whether the state monopoly on games of chance and bets under Portuguese law complies with Community law rules, in particular with the freedom to provide services, free competition and the prohibition of state monopolies.
• In a second question the Portuguese court inquires about the criteria for interpreting national provisions restricting these Community law principles. It would like to assess whether such restrictions are admissible in the light of Community law rules.
• Finally, the court inquires whether a ban on advertising games of chance complies with the principles of Community law, in particular with the freedom to provide services, free competition, and the prohibition of monopolies, if there is an exception under which Santa da Misericórdia de Lisboa can advertise the games of chance it organises.
Due to these preliminary questions, the ECJ will be able to comment on the significance of the competition rules of the EC Treaty (Articles 81 et seq. EC Treaty) for the gambling- and betting sector. This could have considerable implications on the German state monopoly. Moreover, the ECJ will also be able to comment on the legal provisions regarding the advertisement of sports betting and games of chance. Millions, which are so far lost to football associations and clubs due to the ban on advertisement for private operators, are at stake. Sponsoring by bwin has already effectuated dozens of lawsuits in Germany as well.
from: German Gaming Law updated No. 100
The County Court of Porto (Tribunal Judicial de Comarca do Porto) has referred a Portuguese sports betting case concerning the listed bookmaker bwin to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The proceedings, there registered as Case C-55/08, are the eleventh proceedings concerning the freedom to provide services with regards to sports betting and other games of chance (where eight proceedings from Germany alone are pending, which of the six proceedings of the Administrative Courts of Stuttgart and Giessen were already joined in the course of the last years; concerning the proceedings pending so far, see Arendts, Zeitschrift für Wett- und Glücksspielrecht (ZfWG) 2007, pages 347 et sq.). In its questions referred to the ECJ, the County Court of Porto, in addition to questions concerning the freedom to provide services also raises questions with regards to Community law rules on competition and the prohibition of state monopolies.
The parties of the initial proceedings are the same as the ones of the proceedings already pending since last year registered as Case C-42/07 (cf. German Gaming Law updated No. 79), but with inverted procedural roles. The plaintiff of the current proceedings is Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML). SCML is exclusively entitled to operate lotteries and games of chance similar to lotteries under Portuguese law. The defendants it sued are the Portuguese Football League (Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and two bwin companies (the main company of the group being listed on the stock exchange, the affiliated company sued here holding a Gibraltar license). The matter in dispute is the bookmaker’s sponsoring contract with the Portuguese Football League.
The County Court of Porto referred three questions to the ECJ:
• It wants to have clarified, whether the state monopoly on games of chance and bets under Portuguese law complies with Community law rules, in particular with the freedom to provide services, free competition and the prohibition of state monopolies.
• In a second question the Portuguese court inquires about the criteria for interpreting national provisions restricting these Community law principles. It would like to assess whether such restrictions are admissible in the light of Community law rules.
• Finally, the court inquires whether a ban on advertising games of chance complies with the principles of Community law, in particular with the freedom to provide services, free competition, and the prohibition of monopolies, if there is an exception under which Santa da Misericórdia de Lisboa can advertise the games of chance it organises.
Due to these preliminary questions, the ECJ will be able to comment on the significance of the competition rules of the EC Treaty (Articles 81 et seq. EC Treaty) for the gambling- and betting sector. This could have considerable implications on the German state monopoly. Moreover, the ECJ will also be able to comment on the legal provisions regarding the advertisement of sports betting and games of chance. Millions, which are so far lost to football associations and clubs due to the ban on advertisement for private operators, are at stake. Sponsoring by bwin has already effectuated dozens of lawsuits in Germany as well.
from: German Gaming Law updated No. 100
Administrative Court of Munich grants sports betting agent relief from judicial execution of a prohibition order
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
In a new decision, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) granted a sports betting agent relief from judicial execution of a prohibition order issued by the city of Munich (decision of 7 April 2008, file-no. M 16 08.851). The sports betting agent, who’s case was pleaded by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE law firm (www.wettrecht.de), can thus keep operating his business and transferring sports bets to a privately owned and state licensed bookmaker in the EU. The Administrative Court of Munich has thus changed its previous line of reasoning, after having refused to grant relief from judicial execution in similar cases in recent years. The court granted relief subject to the sports betting agent filing for a license under gambling law.
In the court’s opinion, the outcome of the main proceeding can be estimated to be open. The outcome depended significantly upon the question, whether the normative standards under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its Bavarian implementing act, as well as the measures adopted by the Bavarian state government complied with the ECJ’s requirements for fundamental rights limiting “gambling policies”. This had to be determined comprehensively during the main proceedings in application of the requirements set forth by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The following criteria were decisive: whether an active prevention policy was provided for the state offer, to which extent advertisement would be placed, how large the distribution channels would be and to which extent sports bets would be made a good of everyday life. One also had to examine, what risk potential was inherent to the individual gambling sectors and whether, pursuant to the ECJ’s jurisdiction, one did not have to find a “comprehensive solution” for the entire gaming sector.
The Administrative Court of Munich enjoined the sports betting agent to file for a license, even if granting of the same could be ruled out under the current Interstate Treaty on Gambling. One could reasonably expect from the sports betting agent –this being sufficient at the same time – to make an effort in order to obtain a license and, if need be, to seek judicial clarification after the proceedings of interference (administrative proceedings reviewing an individual administrative decision upon a protest by the party aggrieved) had ended.
In a new decision, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) granted a sports betting agent relief from judicial execution of a prohibition order issued by the city of Munich (decision of 7 April 2008, file-no. M 16 08.851). The sports betting agent, who’s case was pleaded by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE law firm (www.wettrecht.de), can thus keep operating his business and transferring sports bets to a privately owned and state licensed bookmaker in the EU. The Administrative Court of Munich has thus changed its previous line of reasoning, after having refused to grant relief from judicial execution in similar cases in recent years. The court granted relief subject to the sports betting agent filing for a license under gambling law.
In the court’s opinion, the outcome of the main proceeding can be estimated to be open. The outcome depended significantly upon the question, whether the normative standards under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its Bavarian implementing act, as well as the measures adopted by the Bavarian state government complied with the ECJ’s requirements for fundamental rights limiting “gambling policies”. This had to be determined comprehensively during the main proceedings in application of the requirements set forth by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The following criteria were decisive: whether an active prevention policy was provided for the state offer, to which extent advertisement would be placed, how large the distribution channels would be and to which extent sports bets would be made a good of everyday life. One also had to examine, what risk potential was inherent to the individual gambling sectors and whether, pursuant to the ECJ’s jurisdiction, one did not have to find a “comprehensive solution” for the entire gaming sector.
The Administrative Court of Munich enjoined the sports betting agent to file for a license, even if granting of the same could be ruled out under the current Interstate Treaty on Gambling. One could reasonably expect from the sports betting agent –this being sufficient at the same time – to make an effort in order to obtain a license and, if need be, to seek judicial clarification after the proceedings of interference (administrative proceedings reviewing an individual administrative decision upon a protest by the party aggrieved) had ended.
16 April 2008
Sports betting: new referral to the European Court of Justice
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 13 February 2008 -
Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd e Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
(Case C-55/08)
Referring court
Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
Defendants: Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd and Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
Questions referred
1. Is the fact that the State reserves to itself the 'right to run games of luck or chance' (Article 9 of DL 422/89 of 2 December, amended by DL 10/95 of 19 January 1995 and by DL 40/2005 of 17 February 2005) and the right to 'organise pool betting systems' (Article 1 of DL 84/85 of 17 December 1985, amended by DL 317/2002) compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?
2. What criteria should guide interpretation of national legislation restricting those principles, for the purposes of determining whether such restriction is admissible in light of the rules of Community law ...?
3. Is the prohibition of advertising games of luck and chance when forming the substantive content of the message, having regard to the exception relating to the advertising of games organised by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?
Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd e Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
(Case C-55/08)
Referring court
Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
Defendants: Liga Portuguesa de Fuetbol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Baw International Ltd and Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
Questions referred
1. Is the fact that the State reserves to itself the 'right to run games of luck or chance' (Article 9 of DL 422/89 of 2 December, amended by DL 10/95 of 19 January 1995 and by DL 40/2005 of 17 February 2005) and the right to 'organise pool betting systems' (Article 1 of DL 84/85 of 17 December 1985, amended by DL 317/2002) compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?
2. What criteria should guide interpretation of national legislation restricting those principles, for the purposes of determining whether such restriction is admissible in light of the rules of Community law ...?
3. Is the prohibition of advertising games of luck and chance when forming the substantive content of the message, having regard to the exception relating to the advertising of games organised by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, compatible with the rules of Community law ... laying down the principles of the freedom to provide services, free competition and prohibition of State monopolies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)