World Online Gambling Law Report Summer Retreat 2004 The European legal perspective prospects for the future Thibault Verbiest Attorney-at-law at the Bars of Brussels and Paris Partner Ulys Law Firm Professor at the University of Paris I Sorbonne Law of : New Technologies Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Commercial Law

Introduction & Overview 1. Introduction: regulatory framework 2. The Gambelli and Lindman decisions 3. Post-Gambelli jurisprudence 4. Position of the European Commission 5. Conclusion & Forecasts

European Regulatory Framework  The Internal Market Strategy for Services  Remove all remaining barriers in the Internal Market  Directive 98/48 : e-gaming is an information society service  E-gaming regulation must be notified (Belgium, Denmark?)  Electronic commerce Directive : Internal Market clause  Member States may not impose additional obligations  Proposal for a Directive on Services in the Internal Market  Create a real Internal Market – Home Country control COMMISSIONCOMMISSION no : EC Law not applicable art.49: freedom to provide services 1)economic activity ? Restrictions may be imposed, provided that 3) not discriminatory ? 4) justified by the Treaty ? Yes : 2) goods or service ? 5) necessary and proportionate ? art.30 ECCOURTECCOURT EUROPEANMARKET?EUROPEANMARKET?

The European Court of Justice The Gambelli and Lindman decisions

Lindman case  Facts of the case  Land based gaming operation  Advocate-General makes analogy with remote gaming operation  reception of services across borders  ECJ: 13 November 2003  Restriction is infringing article 49 of the EC Treaty  Burden of Proof ?  “Analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the restrictive measure…”  “Statistical or other evidence which enables any conclusion as to the gravity of the risks connected to playing games of chance” Member States must not only claim there is a risk, but also prove that it exists

The Gambelli Case - Background  First remote gaming case brought before the ECJ  Opinion of Advocate-General Alber ( ): the Italian legislation in the field of sports betting imposed a discriminatory measure and - in view of the facts of the case - failed the required justification on grounds of general interest

The Gambelli Case - Decision Is it a landmark decision ?  Application by analogy to “remote gaming”  Confirmation of the Schindler decision  § 59 “Article 4 of Law No 401/89, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services.”  § 60 & 65: “the restrictions must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, be suitable for achieving the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. They must in any event be applied without discrimination”  §66: “It is for the national court to decide whether …. satisfy those conditions. To that end… “

The Gambelli Case - Decision § 66 : “... To that end, it will be for that court to take account of the issues set out in the following paragraphs.” 1.Reasons of justification 2.Discriminatory character 3.Proportionate & necessary Directing the discretional power of the national court Lindman?

The Gambelli Case - Decision  Justification by reasons of public order  §67 MS can impose restrictions, “inasmuch as they must serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner”.  § 69 MS cannot invoke public order concerns if the Member State incites and encourages consumers to participate in games The national authority: §19-23  “cannot find in those restrictions any public policy concern”  “cannot ignore the extent of the apparent discrepancy between”

The Gambelli Case - Decision  Discriminatory character:  restrictions must be applicable without distinction UK established operators = Italian operator  Discrimination: if imposed conditions are in practice to be met more easily by Italian operators than by foreign operators Freedom of establishment: §48-49 “the Italian rules governing invitations to tender make it impossible in practice for capital companies quoted on the regulated markets of other Member States to obtain licences “

The Gambelli Case - Decision  Proportionate & necessary? 1.Restrictions 2.Criminal penalties § 21: “ The national court questions whether the principle of proportionality is being observed, …” 1.Necessary to combat fraud 2.Intermediaries lawfully constituted & authorized 3.Gaming provider already subject to rigorous controls in the UK Internal Market clause

Gambelli Case: some final considerations  The Court does not formally conclude that the Italian legislation is infringing one of the ground principles of European Community law  However, by directing the national court, its conclusion should be similar to the opinion of A.G. Alber  Internal Gaming Market? Too soon to cheer? Consistent gaming policy? Post- Gambelli jurisprudence Position of the European Commission ?

Post-Gambelli jurisprudence

 Application in abstracto or in concreto?  § 75 Gambelli “ It is for the national court to determine whether the national legislation, taking account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes are disproportionate in the light of those aims." The right to impose restrictions Justification of the restriction & consistency of the gaming policy

Post-Gambelli jurisprudence  Belgium: Constitutional Court  Italy: Corte Suprema di Cassazione  Germany?:  Arnsberg (Nov.2003), Stade (Nov.2003), Bayern (Nov.2003)  Berlin (Sep. 2003), Munich I (Oct. 2003), Hessen (Feb. 2004) BGH (April 2004)  Netherlands?:  Betfair (Feb. 2004) >< Ladbrokes (2 June 2004)

Ladbrokes District Court of Arnhem: main proceedings 1. « locus » of the gaming activity 2. Evaluation of the Dutch gaming policy 3. Interlocutory judgement

The locus of the operation (1)  Ladbrokes: games are organized in the UK = not a game of chance in meaning of the WoK 1964 (Betfair)  Court retakes motivation of Arnhem Court of Appeal of 2 September 2003 (Ladbrokes summary proceedings)  Ladbrokes offers Dutch residents a possibility to bet without having the required license  The fact that Ladbrokes is UK based and managed is irrelevant Alternative approach?  Turku, 31 March 2003  Munich I, 27 October 2003: Bet-at-Home

 Turku: 31 March 2003 “A lottery is arranged where the central activity concerning the game is handled and carried out. Internet is only a distribution channel. Possible distance sales of services do not result in the gaming activity being considered to be arranged on every separate location where a customer happens to reside. In the present case, the server is situated in Mariehamn. Also PAF’s management and administration are located on Åland. Considering that both the maintaining of the gaming services and the operational decision-making, the activity is practiced on Åland, whereas PAF’s gaming activity has to be considered to be arranged on Åland”. Locus of the operation : alternative approach

Munich I: 27 October 2003  « Recognition » of the internal market clause  organisation of sports bets and lotteries is subject to a monopoly.  monopoly is not adopted for reasons of public order, but for tax reasons.  Not justified to impose to an Austrian licensed bookmaker an obligation to obtain an additional German license.  Similar reasoning followed by criminal court of Bremen (march 2004) Locus of the operation : Alternative approach

Dutch gaming policy (2.1)  The Court recognizes the right to impose restrictions on the cross-border provision of gaming services, but requirements must be met in concreto!  Betfair case > < in concreto assessment of the grounds of justification  Discriminatory character  Reasons of public order  Consistent gaming policy and the de facto limitation of « the desire to gamble »

Dutch gaming policy (2.2)  Annual reports demonstrate that the objective pursued is to generate as much money as possible  De Lotto: increase of turnover has the highest priority (2001)  Allocation of profits to charity is a positive side effect, but is not a justification  Release of new games  Average annual turnover increase of 10% (’ )  No reference is made towards compulsive gambling and the protection of consumers.

Dutch gaming policy (2.3)  Expansive marketing strategy :  the direct and indirect promotion of gaming activities on radio and TV shows  (unsolicited) direct mail actions to attract new customers, this in combination with « free games »  Marketing budgets  The De Lotto is proud to announce that it won some prices for its jackpot advertising campaings.  not-won-money-back” guarantee  Visit to Holland casino is a normal day out with the family

Dutch gaming policy (2.4)  The Court held that the objective was to stimulate the demand for games, even when such a demand was inexistent  The Court does not see how these activities can correspond to a consistent gaming policy designed to reduce the possibility to participate in a game of chance

Interlocutory judgement (3)  The Court requests the Dutch Government and the De Lotto to come up with some additional “clarifications” ( )  The Court refused to condemn Ladbrokes to block access to  The Court referred to the gaming platform of the De Lotto ( and questioned whether the possibility to bet on foreign sports events could be reconciled with the Dutch Gaming actwww.lotto.nl

The position of the European Commission

1.Electronic Commerce Directive  Remote gaming service is service of the information society – Notification (Dir. 98/48)  Article 1.5 excludes “gambling activities which involve wagering a stake with monetary value in games of chance, including lotteries and betting transactions.”  Scope of the exclusion: Spain?  Free games  Review every two years  First Report on the application of the electronic commerce directive (21 November 2003) The position of the EU Commission

“Online gambling, which is currently outside the scope of the Directive, is a new area in which action may be required because of significant Internal Market problems - see for example Case C-243/01s of the European Court of Justice (ECJ press release CJE/03/98), concerning criminal proceedings in Italy against persons collecting Internet bets on behalf of a bookmaker legally licensed in the UK. The Commission will examine the need for and scope of a possible new EU initiative. In addition, the Commission is examining a number of complaints it has received concerning cross-border gambling activities. “  Scope of the exclusion: forum shopping: cf. Safe Harbours  Regulation in new Member States  Complaints: cf. Denmark / Greece The position of the EU Commission

2. Proposal for a Directive on Services in the Internal Market  Create a real Internal Market for services, including gambling services  Provision of Services  Application of the country of origin principle (Internal Market Clause)  A UK established bookmaker will only be subject to UK legislation and Italian authorities must recognize the adequate character of the protection offered in the UK. Therefore, they cannot impose additional restrictions on the operation of the UK bookmaker. The position of the EU Commission

2. Proposal for a Directive on Services in the Internal Market  Exception for “sensitive areas”, including gambling services  Development of specific rules by 2010 (study?)  As from 2005 present harmonized EU-wide rules on gambling services  The right to receive services across borders? The position of the EU Commission

Conclusion & forecasts  Gambelli & Lindman Decision : Implications on national procedures?  European Commission  Will launch a study on the current legal and market situation  Service Directive? Other initiatives & instruments  EU integration :  Justification of restrictions (consumer protection & organized crime)  National legislation : conflicting gaming policies and the de facto cross-border nature of remote gaming  New Member states: Malta: Remote Gaming Regulations 2004

A Q & I thank you for your attention!