|
|
ECJ challenges legality of German gambling monopoly
08/09/2010
In a landmark ruling this morning, the EU’s highest court has ruled that restrictions on gambling by Germany’s state monopolies could not be justified under European law.
In a response to cases brought by egaming operators including Happybet Sportwetten, Digibet and Carmen Media Group in several of Germany's administrative courts, the European Court of Justice ruled that although monopolistic restrictions on the freedom of private internet operators to offer sports bets under EU law could be justified “by imperative reasons” in the public interest, “the German rules do not limit games of chance in a consistent and systematic manner.”
The German State Gambling Treaty, prohibiting all organisation or intermediation of public games of the chance on the internet, came into force on 1 January 2008. This is due to expire on 1 January 2012.
The Treaty came under challenge last year from one of the 16 Lander locked in legal disputes with private operators. Schleswig-Holstein, whose rejection of Gibraltar-licensed Carmen Media Group's application to offer bets in Germany via the internet was also considered in this ruling, last November demanded the treaty’s cancellation so it could introduce an intrastate licensing system.
The ECJ said in its ruling today that the “preventive objective” of the German monopoly system such as preventing gambling addiction “ceases to be justifiable”, given that the monopolies were carrying out intensive advertising campaigns with a view to maximising profits, and by tolerating policies designed to encourage participation in games of chance which do not fall within the public monopoly such as casino games and automated games.
Thus, ruled the court: “[T]he public monopoly of the organisation of sporting bets and lotteries in Germany does not pursue the objective of combating the dangers of gambling in a consistent and systematic manner."
However, in a statement which will be received rather less positively by private egaming operators, the court re-stated Member States' right to establish public monopolies, on the basis that “[S]uch a monopoly is likely to overcome the risks connected with the gaming industry more effectively than a system under which private operators are authorised to organise bets subject to compliance with the relevant legislation.”
Further, the ECJ's opinion also re-stated its earlier position that EU law does not oblige Members States to recognise licences issued in other Member States.
The various cases will now return to the regional Administrative Courts, with the monopolies now expected to move to limit advertising and promotion of their offerings and gambling products more widely.
欧洲法院挑战德国赌博垄断的合法性
2010年8月9日
今天上午在具有里程碑意义的裁决，欧盟的最高法庭裁定，对赌博的限制，德国的国家垄断不能根据欧洲的法律理由。
在一个由egaming包括Happybet Sportwetten，Digibet和卡门传媒集团在德国行政法院多家运营商的案件对此，欧洲法院裁定，尽管在私人互联网运营商自由垄断的限制，以提供根据欧盟体育投注法可道理“的原因，必须符合公众利益”，“德国的规则并不限制在一个一致的和系统的方式的机会游戏。”
德国国家赌博条约，禁止一切组织或在互联网上公开的游戏中介的机会，来到1月1日生效2008年。这是由于2012年1月1日届满。
该条约受到挑战，去年在与私人经营者的法律纠纷中的16个州之一。石荷州，其直布罗陀许可的卡门媒体集团的申请被拒绝提供通过这项裁决还认为，在德国的互联网投注，去年11月要求该条约的取消，以便它可以引入一个州内的发牌制度。
欧洲法院的判决说，今天的“预防性客观的德国垄断制度”等预防赌博上瘾“不再是合理的”，因为垄断是进行了深入的宣传运动，以利润最大化，并容忍政策旨在鼓励在机会不属公共垄断下降，如赌博游戏和自动化运动会的参与。
因此，法院裁定：“[吨]，他的运动在德国并不追求打击连贯和系统的方式赌博的危险的目的和彩票投注公共垄断组织。”
但是，在将收到由私人经营，而较少egaming积极发言，法院再次表示会员国的权利，建立公共垄断，其依据是“[的]联合医院的垄断有可能克服涉嫌与风险游戏业比下，私人经营者被授权组织投注受到有关法律的遵守情况的制度更有效。“
此外，欧洲法院的意见还重申了自己先前的立场，即欧盟法律并未规定各会员国承认其他会员国发出的牌照。
现在的各种情况下将返回到区域行政法庭，以目前预计移动广告和限制其产品的推广和赌博的产品更广泛的垄断。 |
|
发表于 2010-9-9 21:40
