1. Remote Gambling Regulatory Intensive EU overview London, 13 April 2006 Thibault Verbiest Partner ULYS law firm, Brussels Thibault.verbiest@ulys.net

2. Gambling: EU overview 16 February 2006: exclusion of gambling from Services directive by EP Council unlikely to include gambling: why?  Political reasons  Timing: Swiss Institute report likely basis for a sector specific act  Other priorities

3. Gambling: EU overview Consequences (1) Legal framework unchanged:  Gambling services = services (Schindler)► article 49 EC Treaty  Possible restrictions for imp.reas.gen.int (consumer protection, fight against fraud) + proof of a consistent gaming policy (Gambelli).

4. Gambling: EU overview Consequences (2) No legal certainty: online gambling services still subject to differing national interpretations:  Germany (recent Constit. Court ruling ► “nat. sports betting monop. Illegal”) + The Netherlands (Breda ruling): +/- compliant  France (Zeturf ruling) + Italy (recent ISP blocking): not compliant

5. Gambling: EU overview Consequences (3) EU Commission case-by-case assessment: art. 226 EC Treaty ► ECJ last resort  No legal certainty: Com. discretionary power to investigate complaints  Time consuming: int.market affairs ► 25 commissioners unanimity

6. Gambling: EU overview Consequences (4) More ECJ cases expected ►preliminary ruling references  Placanica case (“Gambelli 2”): Hearing in May 2006  Italy: national courts probably to refer on the ISP blocking

7. Gambling: EU overview Agenda  Adoption of the services directive by Council  Publication of the Swiss Institute draft report (April-May) ► gambling services directive?  Commission: infringements proceedings against 7 MS (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) on basis of sports betting operator complaints ► market opening?

8. Gambling: EU overview Concluding remarks Exclusion of gambling services ►only apparent victory for monopolies  Emphasizes need for sector specific act  Acceleration of Commission investigations and scrutiny  National courts more and more “pro- Gambelli”

9. Thank you for your attention