1. ONLINE GAMBLING BALANCING FREE TRADE & SOCIAL POLICY

2. What is Online Gambling & Who is ‘at it’? Gaming, Betting, Lotteries, Prize Competitions The concept of remote gambling Statistics

3. EXAMPLES Example BettingExample Example Horse-racingExample Example Online pokerExample Example Virtual horse-racingExample Example Virtual race horse breedingExample

4. Risks associated with Online Gambling & Regulatory Objectives Problem gambling & addiction –Harm for individual and society Minors Crime associated with (some) gambling operations (fraud, money laundering) Consumer Protection –Ensuring gambling is conducted fairly and openly

5. Different Regulatory Models Outright prohibition of online Gambling –Workable? US Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 State operator monopoly Eg Svenska Spel or Norsk Tipping (games); Norsk Rikstoto (horse race betting) Single private operator Eg Pari Mutuel Urbain in France Restricted licensing system Open licensing system Eg UK Gambling Act 2005

6. National Regulation as Trade Restriction lDivergent laws, no harmonisation, no country of origin rule lExcluded from scope of Services Directive, E-commerce Directive etc lThe internet & cross-border access lEU Treaty, Arts 43 and 49 (freedom to provide services & establishment) lDirect effect => lever for harmonisation?? lRole of the courts in the absence of harmonisation?

7. The Caselaw of the ECJ (1) Case C-275/92 Schindler Case C-124/97 Lärää Case C-67/98 Zenatti -------------------------------------------------- Case C-234/01 Gambelli Case C-338/04 Placanica (6. March 2007) Case E-1/06 Re Amendment to Game & Lottery Law (14. March 2007) Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes v Norway (30. May 2007)

8. The Caselaw of the ECJ (2) Jurisprudence under Art 234 (Prelim Ref) Commission infringement procedure Art 226 –Notification against Denmark, Germany, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary (April 2006) –Austria and Luxembourg (December 2006) –Commission expressing concerns on the German Inter-State Treaty in March 2007 Internet prohibition for sports bets and lotteries

9. What do the national courts do with this Guidance from the ECJ? The PMU v Zeturf case as an example –Situation following Gambelli & Placanica: –PMU v Zeturf : Court of Appeal, Paris: (1) ordering cessation of operations; (2) quantifying the penalty amount due by Zeturf –Maltese courts refuse enforcement –French Cour de Cassation: Reversed to CA (13. July 2007)

10. GATS-WTO DS 285 Antigua & Barbuda v United States Cross-border online gambling services –Panel Report November 2004 –Appellate Body Report April 2005 –US not complied: February 2007

11. Conclusion Online gambling growth sector => pressure to liberalise cross-border provision Potential for social & individual harm => risk assessment specific to online gambling Enforcement issues pertaining to national regulation (arrests; payment providers) Harmonisation unlikely Role of the ECJ/WTO in determining the limits of social policy –Proportionality test –But application by the national courts? –Result: Litigation battle