Gambling Inside EU

In early 2006, the European Commission started violation proceedings, in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty on European Union, against 7 EU member states following the protests of different private gaming businesses. In the autumn of 2006, it also sent lettering of formal awareness to Germany, France and Austria.

Throughout these infraction proceedings, the Commission has to analyze and take into consideration if the local gaming regulations involved are compatible with EU law. After receiving the answer to its written demand for information from the member states Denmark, Finland and Hungary, the European Commission decided to take the next step in these actions and send reasoned opinions.

Following the innovative opinion of ECJ in the cases of Gambelli and Placanica, the verdict of the European Commission to carry on with the infringement actions against 3 member states, offers a further authentication of bwin's own legal judgment.

Because secondary legislation regarding gambling doesn't exist, the European Commission has to carefully analyze which individual member states gaming regulations are in conformity with EU legislation as interpreted by Article 49 (the freedom to offer services) of the Treaty on European Union.

If the Commission doesn't manage to obtain a reasonable reply within two months, or if the limitations to which the Commission has objected are not detached, it can pass on the measures to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Norbert Teufelberger, the CEO of bwin, stated that they agree with the judgment of European Commission, which underpins the ECJ's Placanica verdict of 6 March 2007. The decision to carry on with these infringement proceedings against all 3 members states at the same time is a obvious warning addressed to France, Germany and Austria to eliminate their present boundaries on cross-border gaming.

As long as the national officials are not capable to agree on standardized pan-European regulations for the gambling industry, these national rules will continue to be evaluated in the light of the freedoms of enterprise and services attached in the Treaty on European Union and the prevention of discrimination.

Any boundaries will be seen in the light of the necessities laid out in the Gambelli and Placanica rulings. Against these conditions, countries like France are called upon to draw up gaming legislation in harmony with EU law. Bwin would happily offer its helpful support to such a development, as it has in the past.

Under Article 226 of the Treaty on European Union, violation actions are classified into three phases: a note of formal awareness, a reasoned opinion, and referral to the European Court of Justice. The first step is a formal demand for information made throughout the investigation of the case, and remains classified. Nevertheless, when it sends a reasoned opinion and finally refers a case to the Court of Justice, the Commission usually informs the public about these procedures by issuing a statement.