Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Gambling

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

1. On a proper interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC:

(a) in order to be able to justify a public monopoly on bets on sporting competitions and lotteries, such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, by an objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to the latter, the national authorities concerned do not necessarily have to be able to produce a study establishing the proportionality of the said measure that pre-dates the adoption of the latter;

(b) a Member State’s choice to use such a monopoly rather than a system authorising the business of private operators which would be permitted to carry on their business in the context of a non-exclusive legislative framework is capable of satisfying the requirement of proportionality, in so far as, as regards the objective concerning a high level of consumer protection, the establishment of the said monopoly is accompanied by a legislative framework suitable for ensuring that the holder of the said monopoly will in fact be able to pursue, in a consistent, systematic manner, such an objective by means of a supply that is quantitatively measured and qualitatively planned by reference to the said objective and subject to strict control by the public authorities;

(c) the fact that the competent authorities of a Member State might be confronted with certain difficulties in ensuring observance of such a monopoly by organisers of games and bets established outside that Member State, who, via the internet and in breach of the said monopoly, conclude bets with persons within the territorial area of the said authorities, is not capable, as such, of affecting the potential conformity of such a monopoly with the said provisions of the Treaty;

(d) in a situation in which a national court finds, at the same time:

– that advertising measures emanating from the holder of such a monopoly and relating to other types of games of chance which it also offers are not limited to what is necessary in order to channel consumers towards the offer emanating from that holder by turning them away from other channels of unauthorised games, but are designed to encourage the propensity of consumers to gamble and to stimulate their active participation in the latter for purposes of maximising the anticipated revenue from such activities,

– that other types of games of chance may be exploited by private operators holding an authorisation, and

– that, in relation to other types of games of chance not covered by the said monopoly, and which, moreover, present a higher potential risk of addiction than the games subject to that monopoly, the competent authorities are conducting or tolerating policies of expanding supply, of such a kind as to develop and stimulate gaming activities, in particular with a view to maximising revenue from the latter,

the said national court may legitimately be led to consider that such a monopoly is not suitable for guaranteeing achievement of the objective for which it was established, of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to the latter, by contributing to reducing opportunities for gambling and limiting activities in that area in a consistent and systematic manner.

(see para. 107, operative part 1)

2. On a proper interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, as EU law now stands, the fact that an operator holds, in the Member State in which it is established, an authorisation permitting it to offer games of chance does not prevent another Member State, while complying with the requirements of EU law, from making such a provider offering such services to consumers in its territory subject to the holding of an authorisation issued by its own authorities.

Having regard to the discretion which Member States have in determining, according to their own scale of values, the level of protection which they intend to ensure and the requirements which that protection entails, assessment of the proportionality of the system of protection established by a Member State cannot, in particular, be influenced by the fact that another Member State has chosen a different system of protection. Having regard to that discretion and the lack of any Community harmonisation in the matter, a duty mutually to recognise authorisations issued by the various Member States cannot exist as EU law now stands. It follows, in particular, that every Member State retains the right to require any operator wishing to offer games of chance to consumers in its territory to hold an authorisation issued by its competent authorities, and the fact that a particular operator already holds an authorisation issued in another Member State is not capable of constituting an obstacle.

(see paras 111-113, 116, operative part 2)