Brussels, 19 July 2011
The European Commission today issued a ‘detailed opinion’ against the draft German State Gambling Treaty. This detailed opinion confirms that the Commission believes the proposed German State Treaty is in breach of EU law. If the draft is not substantially changed after this warning, Germany risks formal infringement proceedings, referral to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and ultimately financial penalties.
The Commission has identified a number of provisions in the German draft State Gambling Treaty which are in conflict with the EU Treaty. While the draft law appears to open the market for online sports betting operators from all EU member states, it in practice reserves the market for the incumbent German monopolies. EGBA considers that several requirements in the draft State Treaty are in breach of EU law, including:
• The total number of sports betting licences available is limited without justification to seven (7), whereas the state monopoly for sports betting is exempt from the requirement to apply for a licence;
• An exorbitant tax of 16.67 percent of the amount wagered is imposed on all operators. This will make online wagering uneconomic, excluding online operators and is clearly intended to protect the current state monopoly on offline bets from online competition;
• The licensing system ‘bundles’ offline and online sports betting together and applies a commercial viability test to would-be operators, thus putting online-only operators at an automatic disadvantage in applying for a licence;
• While privately owned land-based premises are limited to 350 per license, no such restriction applies to outlets employed by the state-owned operators
• Certain casino games may be offered online but only by specified casino game operators that are already operating land-based casino games in Germany;
• An illegal expansion of marketing is encouraged for the state monopoly, but marketing restrictions are placed on other operators;
• The license fee will favour those applicants with land-based operations that attract higher margins and appears to be unrelated to the costs incurred to deliver and then maintain the license.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said today: ‘The draft German treaty has many provisions which are in conflict with EU law. But worse: it is clear that, taken together and especially including a prohibitive tax on wagers from which the incumbent state monopoly is exempt, these provisions effectively slam the door in the face of EU operators from other member states and will in fact extend the monopoly for offline to online games. The Commission must act quickly to stop this test case for its stated aim of a common EU framework for this sector ’.
The proposed German State Gambling Treaty comes after a number of preliminary rulings by the EU Court that the current State Treaty is incompatible with EU law (see inter alia Carmen Media, C- 46/08). The current law expires at the end of 2011 and the intention was to have the new treaty to come into force in January 2012.
In Germany the regions, or Länder, are competent for lotteries and sports betting while casinos and slot machines are the competence of the federal state. There is however no agreement between the Länder on this draft treaty on sports betting. Schleswig Holstein has already notified an alternative gambling law that will foster a commercially viable sports betting market for EU-licensed operators, thereby removing the attractions of the black market for consumers. The Commission raised no objections to such law and EGBA remains fully supportive of the efforts to enact it.
According to a study by Gold Media, the gross online gaming and betting revenue in Germany was €1 billion in 2009, with a 30 percent annual growth rate (1). Online gaming is a large and vibrant segment of the digital economy in Germany. Whilst material, failing to comply with EU law is only one of the major issues with the proposed State Gambling Treaty. The draft Treaty, if enacted as proposed will simply drive consumers into the hands of black market operators that will not deliver the same levels of consumer protection, that will reduce visibility of the online gaming and betting market in Germany and will forego the opportunity to raise tax revenue.
(1) http://www.goldmedia.com/en/press/newsroom/
study-betting-and-gambling-in-germany.html
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
Sigrid.Ligne@egba.eu
About EGBA
The EGBA is an association of leading European gaming and betting operators Bet-at-home.com, BetClic, bwinparty, Digibet, Expekt, Interwetten, and Unibet. EGBA is a Brussels-based non-profit 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. Online gaming and betting is a fast growing market, but will remain for the next decades a limited part of the overall European gaming market in which the traditional land based offer is expected to grow from € 79.6 Billion GGR in 2009 to € 83 Billion GGR in 2012, thus keeping the lion’s share with 87% of the market. Source: H2 Gambling Capital, April 2010
The Notification Procedure
Under Directive 98/34/EC, Member States must notify to the European Commission and other Member States draft regulations regarding products and Information Society services such as online gaming and betting, before adopting them. This procedure is aimed at preventing Member States from creating new barriers to the internal market freedoms by giving the opportunity to the Commission and Member States to evaluate the content of a draft law before it is adopted.
The notification of a text to the Commission opens a three month standstill period during which the draft text must not be adopted. This period allows the Commission and Member States to ascertain whether the draft text presents any unjustified barriers to the internal market. The Commission and/or Member States may then issue:
• a detailed opinion, if they consider that the draft text would, if implemented, create barriers to trade, services or establishment within the EU;
• comments, if they consider that the text raises issues of interpretation or requires further details; or
• no response, if they consider that the text is compatible with EU law.
A detailed opinion attempts to prevent Members States from adopting a text, which contains barriers to the internal market, or to urge them to remove the restrictive provisions, thereby avoiding unnecessary legislative work and future EU infringement proceedings.
Once a detailed opinion had been issued, the standstill period, during which the draft text must not be adopted, is extended by one month. If, after this time, the draft text is adopted without modification, the Commission can immediately commence an infringement procedure against the Member State’s newly adopted legislation.
To access the TRIS database and search for other draft laws see:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/index.cfm?lang=EN
19 July 2011
19 March 2011
Sportwettenrecht120 final
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Sportwettenrecht120 final
View more documents from Martin Arendts.
A View of European Gambling Regulation
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
A view of european gambling regulation
View more documents from Martin Arendts.
01 February 2011
Principality of Liechtenstein: Call for Tenders for a Casino License
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The new Gambling Act (Geldspielgesetz - GSG) and the Casino Ordinance (Spielbankenverordnung - SPBV) of the Principality of Liechtenstein allow the operation of a casino. Today, the government authorised the call for tenders. Until an evaluation report will be published, only one license will be granted. Applications for the license have to be filed by 31 March 2011, 4:30 p.m.
The new Gambling Act (Geldspielgesetz - GSG) and the Casino Ordinance (Spielbankenverordnung - SPBV) of the Principality of Liechtenstein allow the operation of a casino. Today, the government authorised the call for tenders. Until an evaluation report will be published, only one license will be granted. Applications for the license have to be filed by 31 March 2011, 4:30 p.m.
19 February 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
12 February 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
27 January 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.
09 November 2009
ECJ and Gambling: New referral from Austria
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz (Austria) lodged on 31 August 2009 -
Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
Case C-347/09
Questions referred:
1. (a) Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 14 et seq. and Paragraph 21 of the Austrian Law on Gaming (Glücksspielgesetz), under which
- a licence for lotteries (e.g. lotteries, electronic lotteries, etc.) may be granted to no more than one applicant for a period of up to 15 years, such applicant being required, inter alia, to be a capital company established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation;
- a licence for casinos may be granted to no more than 12 applicants for a period of up to 15 years, such applicants being required, inter alia, to be public limited companies established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up share capital of EUR 22 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of taxation for the regional authorities?
These questions arise specifically against the following background: Casinos Austria AG holds all 12 casino licences, which were granted on 18 December 1991 for the maximum period of 15 years and which have since been extended without a public tendering procedure or notice.
(b) If so, can such legislation also be justified for reasons relating to the public interest in a restriction of betting activities if the licensees in a quasi-monopoly are themselves pursuing a policy of expansion of games of chance, and employing intensive advertising in order to do so?
(c) If so, must the referring court - in its examination of the proportionality of such legislation, which aims to prevent criminal offences by monitoring operators active in this sector and thereby steering gaming activities towards a regime in which they will be subject to checks - take account of the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who, in any event, are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict conditions and checks associated with their licence?
2. Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the continuing responsibility, in principle, of the Member States for the regulation of criminal law, rules of a Member State's criminal law are nevertheless to be assessed by reference to Community law if they are liable to prohibit or impede the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?
3. (a) Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider's State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust?
(b) If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides?
(c) If so, must consideration be given - when examining the proportionality of a Member State's rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State - to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures?
(d) If so, must the referring court take account - in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction - of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?
(e) Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition - on pain of criminal penalties - of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services?
(f) In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State's rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
4. (a) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted in such a way that the temporary nature of the service provision precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being deemed to be established in that Member State?
(b) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that a provision directed at support services within a Member State which prohibits them from facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State also amounts to a restriction of that service provider's freedom to provide services if the support services are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?
Criminal proceedings against Jochen Dickinger, Franz Ömer
Case C-347/09
Questions referred:
1. (a) Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as, in principle, precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 3 in conjunction with Paragraph 14 et seq. and Paragraph 21 of the Austrian Law on Gaming (Glücksspielgesetz), under which
- a licence for lotteries (e.g. lotteries, electronic lotteries, etc.) may be granted to no more than one applicant for a period of up to 15 years, such applicant being required, inter alia, to be a capital company established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up nominal or share capital of at least EUR 109 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of federal taxation;
- a licence for casinos may be granted to no more than 12 applicants for a period of up to 15 years, such applicants being required, inter alia, to be public limited companies established in Austria, prohibited from establishing branches outside Austria, having a paid-up share capital of EUR 22 000 000 and which may, in the circumstances, be expected to achieve the best yield in terms of taxation for the regional authorities?
These questions arise specifically against the following background: Casinos Austria AG holds all 12 casino licences, which were granted on 18 December 1991 for the maximum period of 15 years and which have since been extended without a public tendering procedure or notice.
(b) If so, can such legislation also be justified for reasons relating to the public interest in a restriction of betting activities if the licensees in a quasi-monopoly are themselves pursuing a policy of expansion of games of chance, and employing intensive advertising in order to do so?
(c) If so, must the referring court - in its examination of the proportionality of such legislation, which aims to prevent criminal offences by monitoring operators active in this sector and thereby steering gaming activities towards a regime in which they will be subject to checks - take account of the fact that the legislation also covers cross-border service providers who, in any event, are subject in the Member State of establishment to the strict conditions and checks associated with their licence?
2. Are the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the continuing responsibility, in principle, of the Member States for the regulation of criminal law, rules of a Member State's criminal law are nevertheless to be assessed by reference to Community law if they are liable to prohibit or impede the exercise of one of the fundamental freedoms?
3. (a) Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider's State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust?
(b) If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides?
(c) If so, must consideration be given - when examining the proportionality of a Member State's rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State - to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures?
(d) If so, must the referring court take account - in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction - of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided?
(e) Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition - on pain of criminal penalties - of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services?
(f) In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State's rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
4. (a) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted in such a way that the temporary nature of the service provision precludes the service provider from equipping himself with a certain infrastructure (such as a server) in the host Member State without being deemed to be established in that Member State?
(b) Is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that a provision directed at support services within a Member State which prohibits them from facilitating the provision of services by a provider established in another Member State also amounts to a restriction of that service provider's freedom to provide services if the support services are established in the same Member State as some of the recipients of the service?
25 October 2009
EGR: Online gambling ban in Germany could be overturned
GERMANY'S ONLINE GAMBLING ban is under threat after one of the 16 German states that ratified the treaty underpinning the ban demanded its cancellation at the weekend.
The agreement between the ruling coalition Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP) in Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost of Germany’s 16 Lander, was published on Saturday and called for an end to the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its replacement with new regulation.
The leader of the FDP and the coalition in Schleswig-Holstein, Jürgen Koppelin, said that if the other German states failed to agree on a new uniform regulation to replace the Treaty, which came into force on 1 January last year, the coalition would seek to introduce an intrastate licensing system.
German gaming lawyer Martin Arendts of Arendts Anwalte said that “the argument that only a monopoly can protect customers, prevent problem gambling and guard against fraud would not hold any more,” which would undermine the monopoly position of the other German states.
Although the coalition is only reported to have commented on the potential impacts of such a move on the land-based gaming industry in the state, such as privatising state-owned casinos, Arendts told EGRMagazine.com that any new licensing system would necessarily have to apply to online gaming and betting, all forms of which except horse race betting are currently banned.
The European Gaming and Betting Association has consistently argued that the protectionist monopoly position of Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling contravenes European Union law under Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome by restricting the rights of its members, such as Bwin and Unibet, to provide online gaming services.
Arendts also highlighted that Schleswig-Holstein only ratified the Interstate Treaty on Gambling in December 2007 for “fiscal reasons,” having previously favoured a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting that would have provided licenses for private bookmakers.
A failure by all the German states to ratify a new regulation by 1 January 2012, when the existing treaty expires, would also render the current state gambling monopoly unenforceable.
Stephen Carter
eGaming Review
The agreement between the ruling coalition Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP) in Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost of Germany’s 16 Lander, was published on Saturday and called for an end to the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling and its replacement with new regulation.
The leader of the FDP and the coalition in Schleswig-Holstein, Jürgen Koppelin, said that if the other German states failed to agree on a new uniform regulation to replace the Treaty, which came into force on 1 January last year, the coalition would seek to introduce an intrastate licensing system.
German gaming lawyer Martin Arendts of Arendts Anwalte said that “the argument that only a monopoly can protect customers, prevent problem gambling and guard against fraud would not hold any more,” which would undermine the monopoly position of the other German states.
Although the coalition is only reported to have commented on the potential impacts of such a move on the land-based gaming industry in the state, such as privatising state-owned casinos, Arendts told EGRMagazine.com that any new licensing system would necessarily have to apply to online gaming and betting, all forms of which except horse race betting are currently banned.
The European Gaming and Betting Association has consistently argued that the protectionist monopoly position of Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling contravenes European Union law under Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome by restricting the rights of its members, such as Bwin and Unibet, to provide online gaming services.
Arendts also highlighted that Schleswig-Holstein only ratified the Interstate Treaty on Gambling in December 2007 for “fiscal reasons,” having previously favoured a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting that would have provided licenses for private bookmakers.
A failure by all the German states to ratify a new regulation by 1 January 2012, when the existing treaty expires, would also render the current state gambling monopoly unenforceable.
Stephen Carter
eGaming Review
17 October 2009
Coalition agreement in Schleswig-Holstein demands cancellation of the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling
by Martin Arendts, attorney-at-law
Kiel/Germany – According to the coalition agreement between the Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP), published on 17 October 2009, Schleswig-Holstein, one of the 16 German states (Länder), will cancel the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and thereby end the state monopoly on gambling.
According to Jürgen Koppelin, leader of the Liberal Party Schleswig-Holstein, other German states might follow the example of Schleswig-Holstein. If the Germans states can not agree on a new uniform regulation, CDU and FDF announced to consider a licensing system. According to the coalition agreement, the now state-owned casinos in Schleswig-Holstein will also be privatised.
Originally, Schleswig-Holstein did not agree to the Interstate Treaty, but favoured an alternative model, a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting, providing licenses to private bookmakers. Due to “fiscal reasons” the state finally ratified the Interstate treaty on Gambling in 2007.
Kiel/Germany – According to the coalition agreement between the Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) and the Liberal Party (FDP), published on 17 October 2009, Schleswig-Holstein, one of the 16 German states (Länder), will cancel the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and thereby end the state monopoly on gambling.
According to Jürgen Koppelin, leader of the Liberal Party Schleswig-Holstein, other German states might follow the example of Schleswig-Holstein. If the Germans states can not agree on a new uniform regulation, CDU and FDF announced to consider a licensing system. According to the coalition agreement, the now state-owned casinos in Schleswig-Holstein will also be privatised.
Originally, Schleswig-Holstein did not agree to the Interstate Treaty, but favoured an alternative model, a separate Interstate Treaty on Sport Betting, providing licenses to private bookmakers. Due to “fiscal reasons” the state finally ratified the Interstate treaty on Gambling in 2007.
28 September 2009
Administrative Court of Mainz assesses constitutional deficits of sports betting monopoly
by Martin Arendts, Attorney-at-Law
The Administrative Court of Mainz, Germany, noted yet again constitutional deficits of the state’s sports betting monopoly. In the case at hand, the judges therefore granted exemption from judicial execution to the defendant (order of 4 September 2009, file number: 6 L 770/09.MZ).
Thus the defendent, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE, may continue to collect and forward offers of sports bets to a bookmaker, licensed in the EU member state Austria. This may happen under the usual requirements, i.e. to point out possible addictiveness and to prohibit the participation of minors. Hence the plaintiff, the State Rhineland Palatinate, was unsuccessful in its attempt to amend an interim order in favour of the betting shop, issued in 2007.
The Court pointed out that the monopoly organiser of sports betting, Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH, does not meet the requirements as formulated in § 10 Abs. 3 GlüStV (Interstate Treaty on Gambling), or the criteria outlined by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision from March 28th 2006. The aforementioned statute and court decision, both highlighted that it was necessary to reduce the number of receiving offices effectively, in order to comply with § 1 GlüStV. The state’s legislation, however, only specified an effective reduction of receiving offices till 2011. The Court therefore made it clear that this would not suffice. Furthermore it disapproved of the exact wording of the satute in question, as it only provided for a vague guideline.
The Administrative Court of Mainz, Germany, noted yet again constitutional deficits of the state’s sports betting monopoly. In the case at hand, the judges therefore granted exemption from judicial execution to the defendant (order of 4 September 2009, file number: 6 L 770/09.MZ).
Thus the defendent, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE, may continue to collect and forward offers of sports bets to a bookmaker, licensed in the EU member state Austria. This may happen under the usual requirements, i.e. to point out possible addictiveness and to prohibit the participation of minors. Hence the plaintiff, the State Rhineland Palatinate, was unsuccessful in its attempt to amend an interim order in favour of the betting shop, issued in 2007.
The Court pointed out that the monopoly organiser of sports betting, Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH, does not meet the requirements as formulated in § 10 Abs. 3 GlüStV (Interstate Treaty on Gambling), or the criteria outlined by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision from March 28th 2006. The aforementioned statute and court decision, both highlighted that it was necessary to reduce the number of receiving offices effectively, in order to comply with § 1 GlüStV. The state’s legislation, however, only specified an effective reduction of receiving offices till 2011. The Court therefore made it clear that this would not suffice. Furthermore it disapproved of the exact wording of the satute in question, as it only provided for a vague guideline.
16 September 2009
right2bet petition
The right2bet petition:
I hereby state my support for right2bet and their aim for all EU citizens to have the right to choose which EU licensed online betting provider they use, irrespective of which Member State they operate from.
I, the undersigned, wish to bring to your attention the following:
- I want the right to use the Internet to bet online across borders of all EU Member States.
- I want the right to use websites of EU licensed online gambling operators that give me more fun, better odds and better games.
- I do not want to have to go outside the EU to use sites which may be unlicensed and whose origins I know nothing about.
- I want you to take firm action against governments of EU Member States that will still not allow me (and other citizens of the EU) to exercise this freedom.
- I want to know that responsible gambling will be encouraged. I want to know that my children cannot access these sites.
- I want the Commission to take action against Member States that do not allow me to bet with EU-licensed operators that meet the highest standards in consumer and child protection, socially responsible gambling and crime prevention.
- I want you to take action to remove the existing barriers to EU consumers exercising their rights to purchase online services across EU Member States borders.
http://www.right2bet.net
I hereby state my support for right2bet and their aim for all EU citizens to have the right to choose which EU licensed online betting provider they use, irrespective of which Member State they operate from.
I, the undersigned, wish to bring to your attention the following:
- I want the right to use the Internet to bet online across borders of all EU Member States.
- I want the right to use websites of EU licensed online gambling operators that give me more fun, better odds and better games.
- I do not want to have to go outside the EU to use sites which may be unlicensed and whose origins I know nothing about.
- I want you to take firm action against governments of EU Member States that will still not allow me (and other citizens of the EU) to exercise this freedom.
- I want to know that responsible gambling will be encouraged. I want to know that my children cannot access these sites.
- I want the Commission to take action against Member States that do not allow me to bet with EU-licensed operators that meet the highest standards in consumer and child protection, socially responsible gambling and crime prevention.
- I want you to take action to remove the existing barriers to EU consumers exercising their rights to purchase online services across EU Member States borders.
http://www.right2bet.net
13 September 2009
Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock: European Court of Justice strengthens German gambling regulation
• Last remaining doubts over German Interstate Gambling Treaty cleared up
• Foreign sports betting to remain illegal in Germany
• Gambling monopoly in Portugal is legitimate
Erwin Horak, President of the Bavarian State Lottery Administration and Chairman of the Legal Committee of the German Lotto- und Totoblock, said he was satisfied with the ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on gambling which was announced today. The ruling strengthens the nation states of the European Union. The judges decided that freedom to provide services may indeed be restricted in the case of gambling. The EU states may ban online gambling services because different and more severe risks of fraud apply to online gambling.
The object of the case (C-42/07) brought before the ECJ was the legal regulation of sports betting in Portugal. The specific matter at hand was the legitimacy of a law which grants the sole right to offer lottery and sports betting services in Portugal to a non-profit organisation. According to the ECJ ruling, the member states may decide for themselves how to regulate this industry. The gambling authorisation granted in one member state does not have to be recognised by the other member states. As such, foreign sports betting will remain illegal in Germany.
The European judges had already stressed repeatedly in recent years that restrictions in the gambling industry may be legitimate for overriding reasons in the public interest such as the protection of consumers. The German Federal Constitutional Court had also thoroughly examined and confirmed the legitimacy of the Interstate Gambling Treaty on 14 October 2008 and 20 March 2009.
“There are no longer any remaining doubts at all over the legitimacy of the German Interstate Gambling Treaty in terms of European law. I am very optimistic about the German cases which are still awaiting resolution,” said Erwin Horak. “Today’s decision is another signal to the federal states that they are on the right track. The ruling is also a heavy blow for the commercial gambling industry. As of today, there is no longer any hope for an unregulated gambling market which has no borders and is oriented solely towards the profits of illegal providers,” added Horak.
press release of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock
• Foreign sports betting to remain illegal in Germany
• Gambling monopoly in Portugal is legitimate
Erwin Horak, President of the Bavarian State Lottery Administration and Chairman of the Legal Committee of the German Lotto- und Totoblock, said he was satisfied with the ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on gambling which was announced today. The ruling strengthens the nation states of the European Union. The judges decided that freedom to provide services may indeed be restricted in the case of gambling. The EU states may ban online gambling services because different and more severe risks of fraud apply to online gambling.
The object of the case (C-42/07) brought before the ECJ was the legal regulation of sports betting in Portugal. The specific matter at hand was the legitimacy of a law which grants the sole right to offer lottery and sports betting services in Portugal to a non-profit organisation. According to the ECJ ruling, the member states may decide for themselves how to regulate this industry. The gambling authorisation granted in one member state does not have to be recognised by the other member states. As such, foreign sports betting will remain illegal in Germany.
The European judges had already stressed repeatedly in recent years that restrictions in the gambling industry may be legitimate for overriding reasons in the public interest such as the protection of consumers. The German Federal Constitutional Court had also thoroughly examined and confirmed the legitimacy of the Interstate Gambling Treaty on 14 October 2008 and 20 March 2009.
“There are no longer any remaining doubts at all over the legitimacy of the German Interstate Gambling Treaty in terms of European law. I am very optimistic about the German cases which are still awaiting resolution,” said Erwin Horak. “Today’s decision is another signal to the federal states that they are on the right track. The ruling is also a heavy blow for the commercial gambling industry. As of today, there is no longer any hope for an unregulated gambling market which has no borders and is oriented solely towards the profits of illegal providers,” added Horak.
press release of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock
08 September 2009
bwin / Santa Casa: ECJ delivers judgment in the bwin/Portuguese football league versus Santa Casa case
Today, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in a case involving bwin and the Portuguese football league versus the Portuguese monopolist Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Santa Casa). Santa Casa claimed that bwin´s sponsorship agreement with the Portuguese professional football league and accompanying advertising activities were illegal because of Santa Casa’s monopoly in providing on and offline lottery and betting services in Portugal.
According to the ECJ, the Portuguese monopoly on the Internet may comply with Community law under certain conditions, but restrictions imposed by a Member State “must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA: “Given the stringent anti-fraud regulations applicable to EU licensed operators which ensure a high level of integrity, transparency and traceability over online gaming transactions, we do not believe those conditions are met. Several jurisdictions in the EU already prove that it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming market at the same time.”
Today’s judgment must also be seen in the context of the increasing number of Member States that are now in the process of rethinking and redrafting their gaming legislation. As has been obvious for all other consumer markets before, none of the Member States currently drafting legislation has chosen a monopoly model to regulate this modern Internet based market.
press release of EGBA
According to the ECJ, the Portuguese monopoly on the Internet may comply with Community law under certain conditions, but restrictions imposed by a Member State “must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA: “Given the stringent anti-fraud regulations applicable to EU licensed operators which ensure a high level of integrity, transparency and traceability over online gaming transactions, we do not believe those conditions are met. Several jurisdictions in the EU already prove that it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming market at the same time.”
Today’s judgment must also be seen in the context of the increasing number of Member States that are now in the process of rethinking and redrafting their gaming legislation. As has been obvious for all other consumer markets before, none of the Member States currently drafting legislation has chosen a monopoly model to regulate this modern Internet based market.
press release of EGBA
Online gaming: ECJ rules in bwin v Santa Casa
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) today published its judgment in the preliminary ruling proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa. In these proceedings, the ECJ assessed whether the Portuguese sports betting and lottery monopoly and its extension to include the internet is compliant with EU law.
In particular, the ECJ examined “whether the freedom to provide services precludes the Portuguese legislation in so far as the latter prohibits operators such as bwin, established in other Member States where they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet in Portugal.” In its decision, the Court finds “that the Portuguese legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.”
The Court also maintains “that restrictions on the freedom to provide services may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest. However, the Court notes that the restrictive measures that Member States may impose must satisfy certain conditions: they must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
The ECJ concludes that prohibiting private online gaming providers from offering games of chance via the internet is compatible with Community law. However, the Court overlooks the fact that respectable private online gaming providers such as bwin are just as able to control gaming in the internet as state monopolies.
Internet warrants greater security than brick-and-mortar gaming
Using this IT-based medium, highest security standards can be met to warrant customer protection and fraud control in particular. As founding member of the European Gaming and Betting Association, bwin helped develop the compulsory Code of Conduct for private online gaming providers. This Code stipulates strict controls which, given the transparency of the internet, have proven more efficient in the internet than in traditional brick-and-mortar gaming and, in particular, conclusively prevent any type of fraud. The European Sports Association, whose efforts also serve to prevent betting manipulation, has successfully been able to implement this.
Internet Gaming is Market Reality – It’s time for legislators to act
Today’s decision once again underscores that a modern regulation of online gaming is indispensable in order to protect consumers. Co-CEO Norbert Teufelberger comments on this ECJ decision: ”Internet legislation contains technical requirements and the Commission must be notified of these before they come into force. This was not done in the present case. As the national court did not consider the notification issue, the ECJ refrained from addressing the matter. It will therefore have to be resolved in the national proceedings. In so doing, the national court will surely go by the statements of Advocate General Bot who pointed out that no penalties could be imposed as no notification had been made.” And he added: ”A legal vacuum has emerged in the European gaming sector because of the rapid pace of technological progress. Among other things, this is borne out by over a dozen preliminary ruling proceedings still pending before the ECJ as well as numerous infringement proceedings against EU Member States which the European Commission has so far put on hold. As a transparent company listed at the stock exchange, it has therefore always been our ambition to change this situation as quickly as possible and to offer our line-up in a regulated environment governed by legal security.”
Co-CEO Manfred Bodner continues: “Online gaming has become a market reality. There is urgent need to develop a legal framework in tune with the times to warrant the interest of consumers, the state and operators. Court rulings will not be able to fill in for a regulation in the medium and long run.”
Norbert Teufelberger specifies: “Only a regulated online gaming market with a diversified and attractive line-up of games will provide adequate security against the risks of a black market which in fact not only opens up the floodgates to crime but also passes up on consumer protection. This is why a growing number of Member States, including Great Britain, Italy or France, have reacted. We are confident that Portugal will also set the course for an attractive regulated online gaming market.”
Background information on the ECJ proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP) v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML):
In August 2005, bwin signed a sponsoring agreement with LPFP for a period of four playing seasons. In view of Portuguese law, which grant SCML sole authority to negotiate sports bets, SCML filed a number of lawsuits, including infringement proceedings, against bwin and LPFP. An administrative penalty was imposed on bwin and LPFP and they lodged an appeal. The court entrusted with the case in Portugal referred a list of questions on the interpretation of the Portuguese gaming monopoly under EU law to the ECJ.
What are preliminary ruling proceedings?
The Court of Justice works together with all courts in the Member States. They are responsible for the application of Community law. To ensure the effective and consistent application of Community law and to prevent diverging interpretations, national courts can (and in some cases must) address the Court of Justice and request it to interpret Community law in order to verify compatibility of their national legislation with Community law. A preliminary ruling may also requested for verification of the validity of a Community act.
See http://curia.europa.eu
further inquiries
Press Officer
Kevin O'Neal
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-240 10
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: press@bwin.org
Investor Relations
Konrad Sveceny - Head of Investor Relations
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-200 17
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: investorrelations
In particular, the ECJ examined “whether the freedom to provide services precludes the Portuguese legislation in so far as the latter prohibits operators such as bwin, established in other Member States where they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet in Portugal.” In its decision, the Court finds “that the Portuguese legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.”
The Court also maintains “that restrictions on the freedom to provide services may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest. However, the Court notes that the restrictive measures that Member States may impose must satisfy certain conditions: they must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”
The ECJ concludes that prohibiting private online gaming providers from offering games of chance via the internet is compatible with Community law. However, the Court overlooks the fact that respectable private online gaming providers such as bwin are just as able to control gaming in the internet as state monopolies.
Internet warrants greater security than brick-and-mortar gaming
Using this IT-based medium, highest security standards can be met to warrant customer protection and fraud control in particular. As founding member of the European Gaming and Betting Association, bwin helped develop the compulsory Code of Conduct for private online gaming providers. This Code stipulates strict controls which, given the transparency of the internet, have proven more efficient in the internet than in traditional brick-and-mortar gaming and, in particular, conclusively prevent any type of fraud. The European Sports Association, whose efforts also serve to prevent betting manipulation, has successfully been able to implement this.
Internet Gaming is Market Reality – It’s time for legislators to act
Today’s decision once again underscores that a modern regulation of online gaming is indispensable in order to protect consumers. Co-CEO Norbert Teufelberger comments on this ECJ decision: ”Internet legislation contains technical requirements and the Commission must be notified of these before they come into force. This was not done in the present case. As the national court did not consider the notification issue, the ECJ refrained from addressing the matter. It will therefore have to be resolved in the national proceedings. In so doing, the national court will surely go by the statements of Advocate General Bot who pointed out that no penalties could be imposed as no notification had been made.” And he added: ”A legal vacuum has emerged in the European gaming sector because of the rapid pace of technological progress. Among other things, this is borne out by over a dozen preliminary ruling proceedings still pending before the ECJ as well as numerous infringement proceedings against EU Member States which the European Commission has so far put on hold. As a transparent company listed at the stock exchange, it has therefore always been our ambition to change this situation as quickly as possible and to offer our line-up in a regulated environment governed by legal security.”
Co-CEO Manfred Bodner continues: “Online gaming has become a market reality. There is urgent need to develop a legal framework in tune with the times to warrant the interest of consumers, the state and operators. Court rulings will not be able to fill in for a regulation in the medium and long run.”
Norbert Teufelberger specifies: “Only a regulated online gaming market with a diversified and attractive line-up of games will provide adequate security against the risks of a black market which in fact not only opens up the floodgates to crime but also passes up on consumer protection. This is why a growing number of Member States, including Great Britain, Italy or France, have reacted. We are confident that Portugal will also set the course for an attractive regulated online gaming market.”
Background information on the ECJ proceedings bwin and Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP) v the Portuguese monopoly Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML):
In August 2005, bwin signed a sponsoring agreement with LPFP for a period of four playing seasons. In view of Portuguese law, which grant SCML sole authority to negotiate sports bets, SCML filed a number of lawsuits, including infringement proceedings, against bwin and LPFP. An administrative penalty was imposed on bwin and LPFP and they lodged an appeal. The court entrusted with the case in Portugal referred a list of questions on the interpretation of the Portuguese gaming monopoly under EU law to the ECJ.
What are preliminary ruling proceedings?
The Court of Justice works together with all courts in the Member States. They are responsible for the application of Community law. To ensure the effective and consistent application of Community law and to prevent diverging interpretations, national courts can (and in some cases must) address the Court of Justice and request it to interpret Community law in order to verify compatibility of their national legislation with Community law. A preliminary ruling may also requested for verification of the validity of a Community act.
See http://curia.europa.eu
further inquiries
Press Officer
Kevin O'Neal
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-240 10
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: press@bwin.org
Investor Relations
Konrad Sveceny - Head of Investor Relations
Telephone: +43 (0)50 858-200 17
Fax: +43 (0)50 858-16
E-mail: investorrelations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)