Gaming: Gambling activities and EU law

This article is an excerpt from the GTDT Gaming 2023 Guide. You can find the full guide here.

In mid-December 1992, EU member states discussed the issue of gambling in the internal market for the first time at the European Council in Edinburgh. They agreed not to implement harmonization of gambling activities at European level. As a result, the discussion on gambling in the EU has shifted significantly to the view that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is responsible for checking whether national regulations comply with EU law.

Gambling activities are excluded from the scope of many regulations, including the Internal Market Services Directive (2006/123/EC). In fact, at the end of 2017, the European Commission (Commission) decided to close the procedure for violations and complaints in the gambling sector.

Since the beginning of the 2020s, the gambling sector has seen an increase in the number of online gambling operators due to technological developments and some measures introduced during the Covid-19 epidemic, creating conditions for the thriving of illegal gambling activities. Member States are now faced with the challenge of preventing these illegal activities.

The Court has repeatedly held that Member States may pursue a policy of controlled expansion, including new and attractive low-risk games, new distribution methods and an appropriate level of advertising, in order to protect consumers and combat illegal gambling operators (e. g. Placanica - Consolidated Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04, para. 55). One of the Court's decisions found that an increase in the business activity of gaming monopoly holders could be attributed to the diversion of illegal activities to controlled gaming networks (see Fluctus et al (C-920/19)).

Apart from this, last year, an important configuration was made in the gambling category of risks related to ant i-money laundering (AML). The online game was evaluated for "high risk" (level 4), and the casino was "medium risk" evaluation (level 2) (such as lottery). Apart from this, the financial dangers of online gambling terrorists have been evaluated for the first time, and the metabolic token used in video games has become equivalent to crypton. Apart from this, an important precedent for gambling proposals that crossed borders (STANLEYPARMA and STANLEYBET MALTA (C-788-18) And ADMIRAL GAMING NETWORK (C-475/20) -C-482/20).

In this section, this section introduces a number of important qualities related to gambling, and as a result, it shows how the court has evaluated this scheme of the "Special Ard" financial business. (Schindler (C-275/92), Section 59).

Schindler: Main contents

The most important step in distinguishing the gambling legal framework in the European law was the 1994 Sindler Court's conclusion.

Some actually do not fall into the concept of "economic activity" in the sense of a contract related to the functions of the Euro Eun (DFES), so it is a gambling liable for gambling that does not have the possibility of expanding in principle. Challenge the Zon e-Freedom of proposal is fixed in real time in 49 and 56 DFE notes.

At least, the courts are the lottery and gambling, taking into account the cultural, religious, and moral qualities of lotteries and gambling in each member country, effectively making it a special institution's work, and the framework of TFEU. Inside, it was not actually under the scope of the financial business. As a result, in various cases, the court has determined that this task is unlikely to expand normal competitive standards.

How long does gambling organizations in member countries need to comply with the EU method? < SPAN> Apart from this, last year, an important configuration was made in the gambling category of risk assessment related to ant i-money laundering (AML). The online game was evaluated for "high risk" (level 4), and the casino was "medium risk" evaluation (level 2) (such as lottery). Apart from this, the financial dangers of online gambling terrorists have been evaluated for the first time, and the metabolic token used in video games has become equivalent to crypton. Apart from this, an important precedent for gambling proposals that crossed borders (STANLEYPARMA and STANLEYBET MALTA (C-788-18) And ADMIRAL GAMING NETWORK (C-475/20) -C-482/20).

In this section, this section introduces a number of important qualities related to gambling, and as a result, it shows how the court has evaluated this scheme of the "Special Ard" financial business. (Schindler (C-275/92), Section 59).

Schindler: Main contents

The most important step in distinguishing the gambling legal framework in the European law was the 1994 Sindler Court's conclusion.

Some actually do not fall into the concept of "economic activity" in the sense of a contract related to the functions of the Euro Eun (DFES), so it is a gambling liable for gambling that does not have the possibility of expanding in principle. Challenge the Zon e-Freedom of proposal is fixed in real time in 49 and 56 DFE notes.

• How long does gambling organizations in member countries need to comply with the EU method? Apart from this, last year, an important configuration was made in the gambling category of risks related to ant i-money laundering (AML). The online game was evaluated for "high risk" (level 4), and the casino was "medium risk" evaluation (level 2) (such as lottery). Apart from this, the financial dangers of online gambling terrorists have been evaluated for the first time, and the metabolic token used in video games has become equivalent to crypton. Apart from this, an important precedent for gambling proposals that crossed borders (STANLEYPARMA and STANLEYBET MALTA (C-788-18) And ADMIRAL GAMING NETWORK (C-475/20) -C-482/20).
• Schindler: Main contents

The most important step in distinguishing the gambling legal framework in the European law was the 1994 Sindler Court's conclusion.

Some actually do not fall into the concept of "economic activity" in the sense of a contract related to the functions of the Euro Eun (DFES), so it is a gambling liable for gambling that does not have the possibility of expanding in principle. Challenge the Zon e-Freedom of proposal is fixed in real time in 49 and 56 DFE notes.

At least, the courts are the lottery and gambling, taking into account the cultural, religious, and moral qualities of lotteries and gambling in each member country, effectively making it a special institution's work, and the framework of TFEU. Inside, it was not actually under the scope of the financial business. As a result, in various cases, the court has determined that this task is unlikely to expand normal competitive standards.

• In the absence of EU harmonization on gambling, and following Schindler's conclusions, Member States have every opportunity to freely determine the objectives of their policy on bookmaking and gambling in accordance with their personal framework of values ​​and standards. They should also clearly define in advance the degree of defense required, if necessary. Apart from that, the Court certainly rejected the application of the principle of double recognition, according to which in the field of gambling Member States do not have to accept the regulations and standards of other Member States.
• When a Member State adopts a law that restricts the fundamental principles of free movement, in particular the freedom to submit (gambling) offers, it is considered a deviation from the general fundamental principles and must meet certain conditions to be justified.

In any case, restrictions on the freedom to submit proposals (or the freedom of establishment) may be justified under appropriate criteria:

... Apart from that, the Court undoubtedly rejected the application of the principle of double recognition, according to which in the field of gambling a Member State does not have to accept the regulations and standards of other Member States.

• When a Member State adopts a law that restricts the fundamental principles of free movement, and in particular the freedom to submit (gambling) proposals, it is considered as a deviation from the general fundamental principles and must meet certain conditions in order to be justified.
• Confidence
• {RUST}
• In fact, this does not mean that Member States are not subject to restrictions in organizing their own gambling markets. Any national measure that creates a situation in which gambling cannot be easily offered in the internal market of the European Union may be considered as a restriction on the freedom to offer gambling, as provided for in Comment 56 TFEU.

When a Member State adopts a law that restricts the fundamental principles of free movement, in particular the freedom to submit (gambling) offers, it is considered as a deviation from the general fundamental principles and must meet certain conditions in order to be justified.

In any case, restrictions on the freedom to submit offers (or the freedom of establishment) may be justified under the appropriate criteria:

Trust

Imposed on the basis of judgments on the social environment, social security and public welfare.

{RUST}

When imposed on the basis of "overriding reasons of social interest" as defined in Comment 52 TFEU, related to consumer protection, combating fraud and crime and combating money laundering (e. g. Läärä et al. (C-124/97)). In such cases, the national measure is unlikely to be discriminatory and must be proportionate to its objective. This aspect of proportionality is considered to be a necessary nuance in the Court's jurisprudence on national restrictions on gambling.

In order for this to be associated with the EU method, it must be applied to the lessons under consideration. Generally, this barrier can overcome it, as the court explained in the Bomber victory judgment (C-311/19) at the end of 2020. See Berlinton Hungary and others (C-98/14), and the referee, in effect, has been founded in other members of the Internet, without leaving the member country established. Note 56 concluded that it suggested that the judgment would be transferred across the border for the purpose of the DFE. At least, the court reminds me that the situation across the border is actually not available to the EU residents from other member countries so that they can be used only by the basics. (For example, Pólus Las Vegas (C-665/18)). Regarding the high possibility of the number of purchasers from other member countries, the court is 56 TFEU in the Euro Union, which refuses the idea of ​​the need to participate.

How will the member countries' gambling policies and standards develop or limited to the EU method?

Gambling political figures and laws have two adjacent areas that are mainly affected by the EU and legal science:

universe

What kind of politician's footprints or it is possible to limit gambling to protect the buyer and choose to protect social order;

{space}.

Space} How is this politician actually executed?

For example, gambling politicians have the options to link these foundations as monopolizing lottery game operators, bookmaker licensing concession models, number of casinos on the land of member countries, and restrictions on advertising. I am.

The implementation method is as follows:

{space}

What kind of type can be played as an exclusive lottery business and how can it be assigned;

{space}

{Space} How do you have a chance to buy a concession when the operator bet;

{space}

Who controls the limited number of casinos of Space} member countries?

{space}

What marketing restrictions are stipulated, and how the restriction violations are punished?

A specific gambling politician has the ability to add restrictions in proportion to it, but only when it is implemented in a true way.

For example, the Court may find that granting exclusive rights to one party (monopoly) and allocating licenses is a potentially proportionate measure to limit the activation of human attraction to gambling and prevent the risks of cruelty and fraud associated with gambling. Similarly, a monopoly on some gambling activities and concession to private operators in others (dual system) may also be a proportionate measure in light of the goals pursued (see sporting opportunities (C-3/17)).

In Dickinger and Ömer (C-347/09), the Court directly addressed the lawfulness of the monopoly model in the context of Internet gambling. Similarly, in the case of Marcus Shtoss et al. (combined cases C-316/07, C-358/07, C-359/07, C-360/07, C-409/07, C-410/07), the Court held that a monopoly is only capable of satisfying the claim of proportionality if it is actually connected with the legislative basis, and therefore the owner of the monopoly may pursue the goals that are at the basis of the monopoly model alternately and continuously.

The license model or concession is also considered to be applicable to gambling politicians. With regard to the casino concession regime, the Court in the Engelmann case (C-64/08) effectively decided that the limit of exposure of the license for casinos is 15 years, although there is an opportunity for this to be justified by the need for the concessionaire to have the period necessary for the recovery of the investments necessary to create a gambling establishment.

Previously, all directives regulating the EU Parliament regulated the area of ​​municipal procurement when forwarding proposals. The criteria applicable to the authorities granting the concessions were built on the principles of non-discrimination and transparency, which arose from the commentary on Article 56 TFEU and the Court's case law on the issue. However, the display of concessions in real time (2014/23/EU) has been used for some concessions for the transfer of gambling offers (see Union cases C-721/19 and C-722/19), but not for lotteries.

Last but not least, the transfer of concessions to provide a lottery must, in principle, obey the law of the court on further and transparent promises. Last but not least, if the member states have decided to provide the right to provide the lottery to stat e-owned or directly dominated companies, there is no need to comply with these indiscriminate and transparent principles. It is also possible to specify the supplier selected by the company. In the Sporting Exchange case (C-203/08), the court has a personal license that is strictly managed by local government operating companies or business operating companies in which management is directly managed by local governments. It was announced that it could be given to the operating company.

In fact, the court states that restrictions on the number of businesses may be justified in any case. It must be purely reduced the probability of gambling and consistently restricts gambling (1) Example: Gambelli (C-243/01)), achieve the main focus of gambling politicians. That (in reality, it is not to increase the interests of local governments due to gambling). In many cases, the research of this series in the context of policy proppons to expand regulations focuses on advertising issues.