Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill Written Evidence


Memorandum from European Lotteries (DGB 102)

  This letter is made on behalf of European Lotteries (EL) further to the call for written evidence of 19 November 2003. EL brings together most of the State Lottery and/or Toto companies of the EU Member States as well as the lottery/Toto companies of Albania, Azerbaijan Republic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Gibraltar, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldavia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

EL is writing to the Joint Parliamentary Committee concerning the content of the UK Draft Gambling Bill. EL welcomes the opportunity to give its comments and would like, if required, to provide oral evidence.

It is well-established case law of the European Court of Justice7[7] that Member States have the right to prohibit or restrict games offered from other EU jurisdictions, even if provided by means of information society (internet, interactive television, mobile betting, etc.) and even if these services are provided by a gambling operator that is established in another Member State and duly licensed in that Member State. In its gambling jurisprudence, the European Court has consistently accepted that a national legislation that confers exclusive rights to certain undertakings to offer gambling services does, as such, not constitute a violation of the EC Treaty, as long as this legislation is justified by objectives of social policy and consumer protection aimed at limiting the harmful effects of gambling activities. Hence, if these conditions are being complied with, national gambling monopolies and exclusive licenses do no violate the EC Treaty provisions. Accordingly, Member States remain entitled to prohibit or restrict gambling activities offered from other EU jurisdictions.

  Among the proposals contained in the bill are the regulation of remote gambling, which will be licensed for the first time in the United Kingdom. EL is very concerned about the impact of the draft Gambling Bill, as the current draft would stimulate UK licensed gambling operators to offer their services on a pan-European scale.

  This evolution would undermine the national gaming policies of the other EU Member States and would pave the way for an unlimited supply of remote gambling services into the territories of the other EU Member States. The European Court of Justice has consistently recognised the discretionary power of the Member States to decide about the number and type of operators, as well as the right to decide about the type and volume of games. If a UK operator would offer its games on the entire EU territory, this would destroy the discretionary power of the national authorities.

  In relation to cross-border gambling, the draft Gambling Bill stipulates that a remote gambling operator will commit an offence if it does anything in the United Kingdom, or uses remote gambling equipment situated in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of inviting or enabling a person in a prohibited territory to participate in remote gambling. It will be the responsibility of the Secretary of the State to designate the countries which are regarded as a prohibited territory. However, following the publication of the DCMS' position paper on remote gambling, EL is very concerned that the prohibited territory clause will not be made applicable to other EU Member States. In its position paper, the DCMS has clearly opted to follow a free market approach on gambling. In the DCMS's view national boundaries have little meaning and there is no black list of countries from where the UK gaming industry are unable to accept customers. The UK Government will only oblige UK operators to refuse bets if (remote) gambling is not allowed in the country of destination.

In addition, the European Court of Justice also confirmed that the extent of protection offered on a territory also depends upon the social and cultural differences of each Member States. In the light of the specific social and cultural features of each Member State, national authorities must have a sufficient degree of latitude to regulate gambling activities and to determine what is required to protect the players. Not every EU jurisdiction has the same gaming culture as in the United Kingdom. This consideration goes hand in hand with the subsidiarity principle, as agreed during the Edinburgh Council of 1992. In Edinburgh, the European Council decided not to regulate gambling at the EU level, as it found that gambling, given the principle of subsidiarity, is unsuitable for Community legislation and is better dealt with at a national level.

In the light of the aforementioned considerations, EL therefore urges the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill to take into consideration the preoccupations of the other Member States so that the future deregulation of the UK gambling policy does not adversely affect the competencies of the Member States with regard to the regulation of gambling services.

EL would also appreciate it if it could give more extensive information about its views during the oral hearings.January 2004




7   Case C-275/92, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v G. Schindler and J. Schindler, 1994 ECR I-1039, Case C-124/97, Markku Juhani La­a­ra­, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd. v Kihlakunnansyytta­ja­, Suomen Valtio, 1999 ECR I-6067, Case C-67/98, Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti, 1999 ECR I-7289, Case C-6/01, Associaça¯o Nacional de Operadores de Ma«quinas Recreativas (Anomar) v Portuguese State, judgment of 11 September 2003, Case C-243/01, Procuratore della Repubblica v Piergiorgio Gambelli, judgment of 6 November 2003 and Case C-42/02, Diana Elisabeth Lindman v Skattera­ttelsna­mnden, judgment of 13 November 2003. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 7 April 2004