Can an agent based in Italy take bets for a bookmaker based in England? According to the Italian government, no. According to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), it depends. The ECJ on Tuesday ruled on the Placanica case, which addresses this very matter, and advocates on both sides of the debate are claiming victory. Following are comments from various observers in response to the ruling.
 |
"(The Placanica ruling) is clearly another big step toward opening up the European gaming market. In the light of this judgment, state monopolies are no longer tenable."
- Konrad Sveceny
bwin
|
|
This judgment is without doubt rather favorable for the existing gambling and betting monopolies. It notably:
Regarding the proportionality of restrictive regimes, (Tuesday's) ruling says that tenders cannot exclude listed companies. It is difficult to see how this element can transform the ruling into a pro-liberalization ruling.
Maurits Bruggink, Executive Director
International Federation of Horseracing Authorities
"(The Placanica ruling) is clearly another big step toward opening up the European gaming market. In the light of this judgment, state monopolies are no longer tenable."*
Konrad Sveceny, Bwin
*As quoted in International Herald Tribune
The ECJ's decision turned out exactly as one could have easily anticipated under the circumstances; yet, let's not get too excited or optimistic at the prospect of the Italian authorities relaxing their rules (particularly the blacklist restrictions) as there are at least two main factors suggesting some caution:
The ruling is only centered on the Stanley model of local data collection/transmission centers simply bouncing the bet offers back to Liverpool via Internet. This is a model of its own and one that only Stanley utilizes in Italy--a hybrid combination of land-based kiosks and online betting. This is NOT pure online betting with no intermediary agents involved in the betting process so my point is that the Placanica ruling does not automatically apply to foreign-based operators engaged in the pure online business and presently blacklisted in Italy as unlicensed there. I do concede that the Placanica arguments and findings very well set the stage for unlicensed companies to claim their full right under EU law to offer online betting in Italy without having to prior come to terms with AAMS, yet they should not take it for granted and court action in this regard may well likely be still required to eventually extend the Placanica ruling's effects to the pure online bookmakers too
Not one word in the Placanica ruling can be found concerning the new legal and regulatory scenario that Italy has adopted since the filing of the case before ECJ (new licenses and new gaming products). This puzzles me a bit, as the Italian authorities possibly backed also by those licensees who recently invested substantial funds to secure fresh licenses (terrestrial and/or online ones) and thereby enter the Italian gaming market may well challenge the ruling or refuse to abide by it on grounds that it deals with an old scenario no longer reflected by the current rules and market.
What is quite certain, though, given also what's happening right now in France and Germany, is that the Placanica ruling definitely does not mark the end of the ongoing legal battle being wagged by the online industry against national gaming monopolies in Europe.
Quirino Mancini, Partner
Sinisi Ceschini Mancini
|
". . . The Placanica ruling definitely does not mark the end of the ongoing legal battle being wagged by the online industry against national gaming monopolies in Europe "
- Quirino Mancini
Sinisi Ceschini Mancini
|
|
We strongly welcome the court's ringing endorsement of what we proved in 2003 with "Gambelli," as well as its explicit condemnation of the Italian restrictions. Today we are calling on the Italian courts to follow the clear guidance of the ECJ and eliminate all the differing interpretations of national legislation with respect to European principles. By reiterating "Gambelli," this ruling means that it is now time for the European Commission to act by enforcing this settled law, and for governments and regulators to fully apply it.
Today's verdict proves what we have said all along: consumers in Europe deserve, and are legally entitled under Article 49 of the Treaty to, a choice in where they place bets. In addition, it clearly demonstrates that our operations are entirely lawful under the European Treaty.*
Adrian Morris, Deputy Managing Director
Stanleybet International
*Comments made at a press conference
The ECJ has confirmed explicitly the existing jurisprudence established since the Schindler case in 1994, which gives member states the right to maintain a restrictive gaming environment and/or a monopoly. The ECJ decision does not affect the right of member states to penalize illegal cross-border offerings in gambling services. The court has confirmed the Gambelli judgment, clarifying one single point, which is that authorized operators are not obliged to reduce their offering in gambling services but that member states can maintain within their restrictive gaming environment a certain discretion on how to combat illegal gambling including the right of the member state to pursue a controlled expansion as it was argued by the Belgian & French governments. A restricted licensing regime by the national authority in the concerned jurisdiction is considered to be an efficient mechanism to combat illegal gambling. The national court needs to look at whether the number of licensees is acceptable. (Thereby, the ECJ did not give any guidance.)
|
"I don't understand the victory claims from the online people, as nothing changes for them."
- Philippe Vlaemminck
Vlaemminck & Partners
|
|
In the specific Italian question at stake:
a. The ECJ has backed the Italian Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Gambelli judgment (the objective is combating crime and illegal gambling), dismissing the views of lower Italian courts.
b. The only point that the ECJ actually decided was that when you want to organize a tendering process for allocating sports betting licenses, you must have a detailed procedure whereby you cannot apply penal sanctions to illegally excluded companies.
c. It is only fair that the Italian government could not exclude a company from a tendering process just because it was listed on the stock market since there are other ways to control such companies.
I don't understand the victory claims from the online people, as nothing changes for them. The issue is only about establishment within the context of a restricted license regime. To that extent, Stanley betting can claim a victory as its agents will not be condemned.
Philippe Vlaemminck, Advocaat - Partner
Vlaemminck & Partners