postado por dimarlen.dominiotemporario.com
Olhada rápida
- bwin nfl:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
- gc poker:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
- gd4p casino:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
bwin nfl:🚀 Junte-se à revolução das apostas em dimarlen.dominiotemporario.com! Registre-se agora e descubra oportunidades de apostas inigualáveis! 🚀
Resumo:bwin nfl:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
no punhado das pessoas ganha pagamento, bwin nfl bwin nfl máquinas caça-níqueis com quatro ou até
mesmo ocasionalmentede cinco dígito. regularmente? Mas também 😗 assim como no bwin nfl
sSinos terrestre - geralmente é muito mais fácil perder bwin nfl aposta do não ganhar esse
po DE dinheiro! 😗 Cassinos para navios De cruzeiro: Tudo o quanto você precisa saber
jogos se azar No mar thepointsaguy : guia; Se 😗 eu ganho 1 jackpot da clot por USR$
1.bwin nfl:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
BOT
delivered on 14 October 2008 1( )
Case C‑42/07
Liga
Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP)
Baw International Ltd
v
Departamento de
Jogos 💪 da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto 💪 (Portugal))
(Legislation of a
Member State granting a single entity an exclusive right to organise and operate
betting on the internet 💪 – ‘Technical regulation’ within the meaning of Directive
98/34/EC – Restriction of the freedom to provide services – Overriding reasons 💪 relating
to the public interest – Protection of consumers and maintenance of public order –
National legislation appropriate for attaining 💪 objectives – Proportionality)
Table of
contents
I – Introduction
A – General presentation of the case
B – Games of chance and
gambling
1. A 💪 wide variety of games
2. A significant economic factor
3. An activity
that gives rise to serious risks
4. An activity strictly regulated 💪 by the Member
States
5. The impact of new means of communication
II – The legal context
A – Community
law
1. Secondary law
a) 💪 No measures governing games of chance and gambling in
particular
b) Directive 98/34
2. Primary law and its interpretation
a) The Treaty
b)
Case-law
B 💪 – National law
a) Information provided by the referring court
2. Additional
information provided by the Portuguese Government
a) The types of games
i) 💪 Casino
games
ii) Lotteries, tombolas and publicity competitions
iii) Lotto games and
betting
b) The regulations of the Santa Casa
III – The main 💪 proceedings and the
question referred
IV – Analysis
A – Admissibility of the question referred
B –
Substance of the case
1. Application of 💪 Directive 98/34
a) The Court’s opportunity to
interpret Directive 98/34, although the national court does not refer to it
b) The
contested 💪 provisions fall within the scope of Directive 98/34
c) The consequences of
failing to give notice of the contested measures
d) The 💪 effects of the Court’s judgment
for the referring court
2. The compatibility of the national legislation in issue with
the freedoms 💪 of movement
a) The relevant freedom of movement
b) The existence of a
restriction
c) The justification for the restriction
i) Arguments of the 💪 parties
ii) My
assessment
– The effect of the limits imposed on the powers of the Member States in the
area of 💪 games of chance and gambling
– Consumer protection and the maintaining of
public order may justify measures restricting the freedom to 💪 provide off-course betting
on the internet
– The proportionality of the legislation in question
–
Non-discriminatory application
V – Conclusions
I – Introduction
A – 💪 General
presentation of the case
1. The problem of the conformity with Community law of the
Member States’ legislation concerning games 💪 of chance and gambling has already given
rise to a relatively large number of cases. Nevertheless it continues to give 💪 rise to
numerous references from the courts of the Member States, as shown by the number of
cases at present 💪 pending before the Court. ( )
2. In the present case, the referring
court needs to be enabled to determine whether 💪 its domestic law, in so far as it grants
a single operator the exclusive right to offer off-course bets on 💪 the internet,
conforms with Community law.
3. The case concerns the Portuguese legislation which
confers on the Departamento de Jogos da 💪 Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa ( ), a
centuries-old non-profit-making organisation which has the object of financing causes
in 💪 the public interest, the exclusive right to organise and operate lotteries and
off-course betting in the whole of national territory. 💪 This exclusive right has been
extended to all electronic means of communication, in particular the internet. The
legislation also provides 💪 for penalties in the form of administrative fines on those
who organise such games in breach of the abovementioned exclusive 💪 right and who
advertise such games.
4. Baw International Ltd, ( ) an on-line betting company
established in Gibraltar, and the 💪 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) ( )
were fined for offering off-course betting by electronic means and advertising it.
5.
💪 The referring court, before which Bwin and the Liga contested the fines, is uncertain
as to whether its national legislation, 💪 in providing for such a system of exclusive
rights for off-course betting on the internet, conforms with Community law.
6. In 💪 those
circumstances, I shall submit, first, that legislation of a Member State which grants a
single entity the exclusive right 💪 to offer off-course betting on the internet and which
provides for penalties in the form of fines on persons disregarding 💪 that right,
constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of Directive 98/43/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council. 💪 ( ) I shall conclude from this that, if that
legislation was not duly notified to the Commission of the 💪 European Communities, it
cannot be relied on against private operators such as the Liga and Bwin.
7. Secondly, I
shall state 💪 that such legislation constitutes a restriction of the freedom to provide
services. I shall consider to what extent such legislation 💪 may be justified.
8. To
begin with, I shall describe the effect which I think the restriction by Community law
of 💪 the powers of the Member States in the field of betting and games of chance should
have. I shall state 💪 that the aim of the freedoms of movement is not to open up the
market in games of chance and 💪 gambling. I shall argue that a Member State should be
required to open up this activity to the market only 💪 if, in law or in fact, it treats
the gambling and games of chance as true economic activities which yield 💪 maximum
profits. I shall also argue that the Member States should have a broad discretion in
determining what measures to 💪 take in order to protect consumers and to maintain public
order against the excesses of gambling, including determining the gambling 💪 services
necessary for that purpose. I shall conclude that Community law should be confined to
prohibiting situations in which restrictive 💪 measures taken to protect consumers against
excessive gaming are manifestly distorting their purpose.
9. I shall state that Article
49 EC 💪 does not preclude legislation such as the Portuguese legislation at issue if it
satisfies the following conditions, which must be 💪 verified by the referring court: the
legislation must be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, it
must 💪 be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives which it pursues, it
must not exceed what is necessary for 💪 attaining them and it must not be applied in a
discriminatory way. I shall make the following points regarding those 💪 conditions.
10.
First, with regard to the risks created by gambling and games of chance on the
internet, a Member State 💪 may legitimately restrict the right to operate such games in
order to protect consumers and to maintain public order.
11. Second, 💪 the grant of the
exclusive right to organise and operate such games to a single entity may be an
appropriate 💪 measure for pursuing those aims if, first, the Member State has the means
of directing and controlling effectively the operation 💪 of gambling and games of chance
by the entity holding that right and, second, if, in actually implementing that
measure, 💪 the Member State does not manifestly exceed its margin of discretion.
12.
Third, the grant of an exclusive right to a 💪 single non-profit-making entity controlled
by the Member State may be a proportionate measure.
13. Fourth, the legislation in
question, in so 💪 far as it grants a single entity the exclusive right to operate
lotteries and off-course betting on the internet is 💪 not, in itself, discriminatory.
14.
Before setting out the legal and factual context of the present case, followed by my
analysis, 💪 I think it necessary to describe briefly the nature of games of chance and
gambling in the European Union and 💪 then the issues to which those activities give
rise.
B – Games of chance and gambling
15. I shall briefly make the 💪 following five
points. Games of chance and gambling today include a wide variety of games. They have
considerable economic significance. 💪 Nevertheless they give rise to serious risks to
society. They are the subject of strict regulations of different kinds in 💪 the Member
States. Finally, electronic means of communication, in particular the internet, are an
important factor in the spread of 💪 such games.
1. A wide variety of games
16. The
playing of games the result of which depends on chance, in which 💪 the players wager a
stake with valuables or money, appears to be very ancient and common to many societies.
Historians 💪 situate their origin in the third millennium BC in the Far East and Egypt. (
) Such games were common 💪 in ancient Greece and Rome. ( )
17. Games of chance and
gambling have changed considerably in the course of history 💪 and there is a very wide
variety of them today. They may be divided very broadly into four main categories.
18.
💪 The first category consists of lotteries, in which I include bingo games, which are
based on the same principle. This 💪 is a pure game of chance in which knowledge and
strategy play no part at all. The result of the 💪 game is determined by the drawing by
lot of winning numbers, the result of which is known immediately or later.
19.
💪 Lotteries and bingo games may be organised on a very different scale, from the annual
draw or bingo of a 💪 local association with prizes in kind of small value to games
organised by national or regional lotteries aimed at the 💪 entire territory of a Member
State or a region of a federal State and which offer a prize that could 💪 be as much as
several million euros. They may also be organised in different forms, so that there is
a 💪 very wide variety of them.
20. In the course of February 2004 the lotteries of
several Member States decided to set 💪 up together a common lottery called
‘EuroMillions’. ( )
21. So-called ‘instant’ or ‘scratch card’ lotteries have also
appeared in the 💪 last 20 years. These offer cards at a modest price on which the result
is printed beneath a film which 💪 has to be scratched off with a fingernail or coin.
22.
The second main category of games of chance and gambling 💪 is betting. This may be based
on the result of a competition, the occurrence of an event or the existence 💪 of
something.
23. The best known and oldest form of betting is on horse races. The punters
are invited to bet 💪 on the result of a race in which those taking part, horses and
jockeys, are known in advance. Consequently the 💪 punters can place their bets in
reliance on luck and also on their knowledge of the characteristics and the performance
💪 of the horses and jockeys. In addition to betting on horse races, there is now also
betting on sporting events.
24. 💪 The winnings depend either on the total amount of bets
or on the odds agreed with the bookmaker.
25. In the 💪 third place we have casinos.
Different games are authorised in these establishments, which are open to the public.
They have 💪 long been regarded as reserved for wealthy clients who are able to gamble
large sums in games that are complicated, 💪 or supposed to be such, surrounded by rites
and ceremonial.
26. Gaming machines must be placed in fourth place. They were 💪 invented
in the United States in the first half of the 19th century and were immediately
successful. ( ) They 💪 are slot machines into which the player is invited to insert a
coin or token and which show a pre-programmed 💪 result by means of a random computer
system. Consequently the moment and frequency with which the result shown by the
💪 machine corresponds to a winning combination depend on chance.
2. A significant
economic factor
27. In recent years gambling and games of 💪 chance have increased
significantly. They now constitute what may be described as a considerable economic
factor. In the first place, 💪 they generate a very large income for the organisations
that operate them. ( ) Secondly, they provide a substantial number 💪 of jobs in the
different Member States. ( )
3. An activity that gives rise to serious risks
28.
However, games of 💪 chance and gambling give rise to serious risks to society in relation
to the players and to the operators that 💪 organise them.
29. First, they may lead
players to jeopardise their financial and family situation, and even their health.
30.
Games of 💪 chance and gambling by nature allow only a very small number of players to
win, failing which they will lose 💪 and cannot go on. In the great majority of cases,
therefore, players lose more than they gain. However, the excitement 💪 of the game and
the promise of winning, sometimes very large amounts, may lead players to spend on
gambling more 💪 than the share of their budget available for leisure pursuits.
31. This
behaviour may therefore have the consequence that players are 💪 no longer able to fulfil
their social and family obligations. It may also lead to a situation of real addiction
💪 to games of chance and gambling, comparable to addiction caused by drugs or alcohol. (
)
32. Secondly, because of the 💪 very considerable stakes involved in gambling and games
of chance, they are likely to be open to manipulation on the 💪 part of the organiser who
may wish to arrange matters so that the result of the draw or the sporting 💪 event is the
most favourable to himself. Furthermore, in that connection an individual player has no
really effective means of 💪 verifying that the conditions in which gambling takes place
actually conform with what is announced.
33. Finally, games of chance and 💪 gambling may
be a means of ‘laundering’ money obtained illegally. Such money can be gambled in the
hope of winning 💪 more. It can also be converted into profit if the criminal is also the
owner of the gambling establishment.
4. An 💪 activity strictly regulated by the Member
States
34. In the course of history games of chance and gambling have often been
💪 condemned on moral and religious grounds and also the maintaining of public order. ( )
Nevertheless they have been accepted 💪 as a social fact.
35. The reaction of governing
authorities has oscillated between total prohibition, strict regulation, while
providing that the 💪 revenue from games of chance and gambling should serve exclusively
to finance causes of public interest, and encouragement so as 💪 to profit from the manna
represented by this voluntary tax.
36. Nowadays games of chance and gambling are
subject to restrictive 💪 regulation in most Member States of the European Union.
37. In a
number of those States ( ) these restrictions take 💪 the form of a ban in principle on
games of chance and gambling, with specific exceptions. Likewise in most Member 💪 States,
( ) the operation of a game of chance or gambling by a private operator, where it is
provided 💪 for, is subject to obtaining a licence from the appropriate authority. In
addition, the number of operators who may be 💪 authorised to operate a particular game is
normally limited, usually by a quota.
38. In several Member States the operation of
💪 games of chance and gambling may also be the subject of an exclusive right granted to a
State organisation or 💪 a private operator. ( )
39. There are considerable differences in
the legislation in force in the Member States. Apart from 💪 the differences in operating
systems, there are exceptions to the general prohibition where it exists, and the
definition of ‘games 💪 of chance and gambling’ and the scope of the national legislation
are not uniform. The same game may therefore be 💪 authorised in one Member State and
prohibited in another or be treated differently. ( )
40. Finally, the tax treatment of
💪 games of chance and gambling differs considerably from one Member State to another
because, in some Member States, the profits 💪 generated by the operation of such games
and gambling must be appropriated, in varying proportions, to causes of general
interest. 💪 Likewise, the share of the winnings distributed to players varies
significantly.
5. The impact of new means of communication
41. Until about 💪 twenty years
ago, games of chance and gambling were accessible only in specific places such as the
numerous outlets for 💪 betting and lottery tickets, race courses and casinos. This meant
that anyone wishing to bet or gamble had to make 💪 a journey and it could only be done
during the opening times of the premises in question.
42. The appearance of 💪 electronic
means of communication in the 1990s, such as mobile phones, interactive television and,
above all, the internet, changed the 💪 situation radically. Thanks to these new means of
communication, punters can play games at any time without leaving their home.
43. 💪 In
this way betting and gaming have been considerably facilitated. Access to these
pursuits has been encouraged by the following 💪 factors. First, the number of persons who
can use electronic means of communication is increasing regularly. ( ) Second, they 💪 are
becoming easier and easier to use and they function in an integrated system. ( )
Lastly, the financial transactions 💪 can be carried out very easily through those means
of communication.
44. In addition, electronic means of communication, particularly the
internet, 💪 enable persons residing in one Member State to gain physical access not only
to on‑line games offered by operators established 💪 in that State, but also to those
offered by operators established in other Member States or non-member countries.
45.
Therefore these 💪 new means of communication have permitted a significant increase in the
provision of games of chance and gambling, which have 💪 become extremely successful. (
)
II – The legal context
A – Community law
1. Secondary law
a) No measures governing
games of chance 💪 and gambling in particular
46. Games of chance and gambling have not so
far been the subject of any regulation or 💪 harmonisation within the Union.
47. They are
expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament
and of 💪 the Council, ( ) the last indent of Article 1(5)(d) of which provides that the
Directive does not apply to 💪 ‘gambling activities which involve wagering a stake with
monetary value in games of chance, including lotteries and betting transactions’.
48.
Games 💪 of chance and gambling are also excluded from the ambit of Directive 2006/123/EC
of the European Parliament and of the 💪 Council, ( ) in which the twenty-fifth recital of
the preamble states that ‘gambling activities, including lottery and betting
transactions, 💪 should be excluded … in view of the specific nature of these activities,
which entail implementation by Member States of 💪 policies relating to public policy and
consumer protection’.
49. However, a national law which prohibits internet service
providers from offering games 💪 of chance and gambling in the territory of a Member State
is likely to fall within the scope of Directive 💪 98/34.
b) Directive 98/34
50. Directive
98/34 aims to remove or reduce barriers to the free movement of goods arising from the
💪 adoption by the Member States of different technical regulations, by promoting the
transparency of national initiatives vis-à-vis the Commission, European 💪 standardisation
bodies and the other Member States.
51. The ambit of Directive 98/34 was extended by
Directive 98/48 to all services 💪 of the information society, that is to say, according
to Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34, any service normally provided for 💪 remuneration by
electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.
52. The term
‘technical regulation’ is defined 💪 as follows in Article 1(11) of Directive
98/34:
‘Technical specifications and other requirements or rules on services, including
the relevant administrative 💪 provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure
or de facto, in the case of marketing, provision of a 💪 service, establishment of a
service operator or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as 💪 laws,
regulations or administrative provisions of Member States, except those provided for in
Article 10, prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing 💪 or use of a product or
prohibiting the provision or use of a service, or establishment as a service
provider.
…’
53. 💪 Therefore Directive 98/34 provides for a system whereby each Member
State must notify the Commission of its proposed technical regulations 💪 so as to enable
the Commission and the other Member States to inform it of their viewpoint and to
propose 💪 a standardisation which is less restrictive of trade. This system also gives
the Commission the necessary time to propose, if 💪 necessary, a binding standardisation
measure.
54. Article 8 of Directive 98/34 reads as follows:
‘1. … Member States shall
immediately communicate to 💪 the Commission any draft technical regulation, except where
it merely transposes the full text of an international or European standard, 💪 in which
case information regarding the relevant standard shall suffice; they shall also let the
Commission have a statement of 💪 the grounds which make the enactment of such a technical
regulation necessary, where these have not already been made clear 💪 in the draft.
…
The
Commission shall immediately notify the other Member States of the draft and all
documents which have been 💪 forwarded to it; it may also refer this draft, for an
opinion, to the Committee referred to in Article 5 💪 and, where appropriate, to the
committee responsible for the field in question.
…
2. The Commission and the Member
States may make 💪 comments to the Member State which has forwarded a draft technical
regulation; that Member State shall take such comments into 💪 account as far as possible
in the subsequent preparation of the technical regulation.
3. Member States shall
communicate the definitive text 💪 of a technical regulation to the Commission without
delay.
…’
55. Article 9 of Directive 98/34 provides as follows:
‘1. Member States shall
💪 postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for three months from the date of
receipt by the Commission of 💪 the communication referred to in Article 8(1).
2. Member
States shall postpone:
…
– without prejudice to paragraphs 4 and 5, for four 💪 months the
adoption of any draft rule on services, from the date of receipt by the Commission of
the communication 💪 referred to in Article 8(1) if the Commission or another Member State
delivers a detailed opinion, within three months of 💪 that date, to the effect that the
measure envisaged may create obstacles to the free movement of services or to 💪 the
freedom of establishment of service operators within the internal market.
…
4. Member
States shall postpone the adoption of a draft 💪 technical regulation for 12 months from
the date of receipt by the Commission of the communication referred to in Article 💪 8(1)
if, within the three months following that date, the Commission announces its finding
that the draft technical regulation concerns 💪 a matter which is covered by a proposal
for a directive, regulation or decision presented to the Council in accordance 💪 with
Article 189 of the [EC] Treaty [now Article 249 EC].
…’
2. Primary law and its
interpretation
56. The regulations of the 💪 Member States concerning games of chance and
gambling must not interfere with the obligations of the Member States in the 💪 context of
the EC Treaty, particularly in relation to the freedoms of movement.
a) The Treaty
57.
The first paragraph of Article 💪 49 EC prohibits restrictions on the freedom to provide
services within the Community in respect of nationals of Member States 💪 who are
established in a State of the Community other than that of the person for whom the
services are 💪 intended.
58. Under Articles 48 and 55 EC, Article 49 is applicable to the
services offered by a company formed in 💪 accordance with the law of a Member State and
having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business
💪 within the Community.
b) Case-law
59. The problem of whether the laws of the Member
States concerning games of chance and gambling 💪 are consistent with the fundamental
freedoms of movement have given rise to a relatively large body of case-law, the main
💪 outlines of which may be described as follows.
60. Games of chance and gambling are an
economic activity within the meaning 💪 of Article 2 EC. ( ) They consist in the provision
of a particular service, namely the hope of making 💪 a cash profit, in return for
remuneration.
61. They are also a service activity which falls within the scope of
Articles 💪 43 and 49 EC concerning the freedom of establishment and the freedom to
provide services. National legislation prohibiting or restricting 💪 the right to operate
games of chance and gambling in a Member State may therefore be a restriction of those
💪 freedoms of movement. ( )
62. However, the Court has consistently held that such games
represent a particular economic activity for 💪 the following reasons. First, in all the
Member States, moral, religious or cultural considerations tend to restrict, or even
prohibit, 💪 such games to prevent them from being a source of private profit. Secondly,
games of chance and gambling involve a 💪 high risk of crime or fraud, given the size of
the potential winnings. In addition, they are an encouragement to 💪 spend which may have
damaging individual and social consequences. Finally, although this cannot in itself be
regarded as an objective 💪 justification, it is not without relevance that lotteries may
make a significant contribution to the financing of benevolent or public 💪 interest
activities such as social works, charitable works, sport or culture. ( )
63. Lotteries
organised on a large scale, ( 💪 ) gaming machines, ( ) betting on sporting events ( ) and
casino gambling and games ( ) have been 💪 considered likely to create a high risk of
crime and fraud because of the considerable sums involved, and also a 💪 risk to consumers
because they are an encouragement to spend. ( )
64. The Member States may legitimately
provide for restrictions 💪 on the operation of games with those characteristics, on
grounds of consumer protection (limiting the passion of human beings for 💪 gaming,
preventing citizens from being tempted to spend excessively on gaming) and defending
the social order (preventing the risks of 💪 crime and fraud created by gaming). These are
reasons of overriding general interest which may justify restrictions on the freedoms
💪 of movement. ( )
65. On the other hand, using income from gaming to finance social
activities cannot be a justification 💪 as such. The Court bases that assessment on the
principle that the diminution or reduction of tax revenue is not 💪 one of the grounds
listed in Article 46 EC and does not constitute a matter of overriding general
interest. ( 💪 ) Using the income from gaming in that way is only an incidental beneficial
consequence of a restriction. ( )
66. 💪 Determining the necessary degree of protection
for consumers and the maintenance of public order with regard to games of chance 💪 and
gambling is a matter for the Member States.
67. According to the Court, the national
authorities must be allowed a 💪 sufficient margin of discretion to determine the
requirements entailed by the protection of gamblers and, more generally, taking account
of 💪 the social and cultural characteristics of each Member State, the preservation of
public order, with regard to the organisational arrangements 💪 of gaming and betting and
the amount of stakes, as well the use made of the profits to which they 💪 give rise. ( )
The Member States are therefore free to set the objectives of their policy on betting
and 💪 gaming and, where appropriate, to define in detail the degree of protection sought.
( )
68. However, in order to be 💪 justified, a national measure restricting a freedom of
movement must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; must be appropriate for
💪 securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues; and must not go beyond what
is necessary in order to 💪 attain that objective. ( )
69. In the context of monitoring
compliance with those conditions, the Court has stated on several 💪 occasions that the
reasons justifying the restrictions laid down by the measure in question must be
considered together. ( )
70. 💪 The Court has accepted that the following restrictions may
be justified.
71. A Member State has the right to prohibit entirely 💪 any gaming in its
territory. ( ) According to the Court, it is for those authorities to consider whether,
in 💪 the context of the aim pursued, it is necessary to prohibit activities of that kind,
totally or partially, or only 💪 to restrict them and to lay down more or less rigorous
procedures for controlling them. ( )
72. A Member State 💪 may also grant a single entity
or a limited number of operators an exclusive right to operate gaming and betting. 💪 (
)
73. The Court considers that the authorisation by a Member State for the operation of
gaming and betting activities 💪 by an entity with an exclusive right or by a specified
number of operators is not incompatible with the aims 💪 of protecting consumers from
being tempted to spend excessively and maintaining public order. According to the
Court, limited authorisation of 💪 games of chance and gambling on an exclusive basis,
which has the advantage of confining the desire to gamble and 💪 the operation of gambling
within controlled channels, of preventing the risk of fraud or crime in the context of
such 💪 operation, and of using the resulting profits for public interest purposes,
likewise falls within the ambit of those objectives. ( 💪 )
74. In addition, the mere fact
that a Member State has opted for a system of protection which differs from 💪 that
adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the need for, and
proportionality of, the provisions enacted 💪 to that end. Those provisions must be
assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the national authorities of
💪 the Member State concerned and the degree of protection which they are intended to
provide. ( )
75. In Läärä and 💪 Others, the Court also examined the question of whether,
to attain the objectives pursued by the Finnish law concerning the 💪 operation of gaming
machines, it was preferable, rather than granting an exclusive operating right to the
licensed public body, to 💪 adopt regulations imposing the necessary code of conduct on
the operators concerned.
76. The Court stated that that question was a 💪 matter to be
assessed by the Member States, subject however to the proviso that the choice made in
that regard 💪 must not be disproportionate to the aim pursued. ( ) The Court took the
view that that condition was fulfilled 💪 because the body with the exclusive right to
operate the slot machines was a public-law association the activities of which 💪 were
carried on under the control of the State and which was required to pay over to the
State the 💪 amount of the net distributable proceeds received from the operation of the
slot machines. ( )
77. The Court added that, 💪 while it was true that the sums thus
received by the State for public interest purposes could equally be obtained 💪 by other
means, such as taxation of the activities of the various operators authorised to pursue
them within the framework 💪 of rules of a non-exclusive nature; however, the obligation
imposed on the licensed public body, requiring it to pay over 💪 the proceeds of its
operations, constituted a measure which, given the risk of crime and fraud, was
certainly more effective 💪 in ensuring that strict limits were set to the lucrative
nature of such activities. ( )
78. In Zenatti, Gambelli and 💪 Others, and Placanica and
Others, cited above, the Court spelt out more clearly the conditions which national
legislation must satisfy 💪 in order to be justified with particular regard to the Italian
law granting a limited number of organisations fulfilling certain 💪 criteria an exclusive
right to organise betting.
79. In Zenatti, the Court observed that the Italian
legislation in question sought to 💪 prevent such gaming from being a source of private
profit, to avoid risks of crime and fraud and the damaging 💪 individual and social
consequences of the incitement to spend which it represents and to allow it only to the
extent 💪 to which it may be socially useful as being conducive to the proper conduct of
competitive sports. ( )
80. The 💪 Court stated that such legislation could be justified
only if, from the outset, it reflected a concern to bring about 💪 a genuine diminution in
gambling opportunities and if the financing of social activities through a levy on the
proceeds of 💪 authorised games constituted only an incidental beneficial consequence and
not the real justification for the restrictive policy adopted. ( ) 💪 The Court added that
it was for the national court to verify whether, having regard to the specific rules
governing 💪 its application, the national legislation is genuinely directed to realising
the objectives which are capable of justifying it and whether 💪 the restrictions which it
imposes do not appear disproportionate in the light of those objectives. ( )
81. In
Gambelli and 💪 Others, cited above, the referring court stated that the Italian law on
betting had been amended in 2000 and that 💪 the background documents of the amending
measure showed that the Italian Republic was pursuing a policy of substantially
expanding betting 💪 and gaming at national level with a view to obtaining funds, while
also protecting existing licensees.
82. The Court stated that 💪 restrictions on grounds
of consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander on
gaming may be 💪 justified only if they are appropriate for achieving those objectives,
inasmuch as they must serve to limit betting activities in 💪 a consistent and systematic
manner. ( )
83. The Court added that, in so far as the authorities of a Member 💪 State
incite and encourage consumers to participate in lotteries, games of chance and betting
to the financial benefit of the 💪 public purse, the authorities of that State cannot
invoke public order concerns relating to the need to reduce opportunities for 💪 betting
in order to justify measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings. ( )
84. In
view of 💪 the aim of avoiding gaming licensees being involved in criminal or fraudulent
activities, the Court found that the Italian legislation 💪 on invitations to tender
appeared disproportionate in so far as it prevented capital companies quoted on
regulated markets of other 💪 Member States from obtaining licences to organise sporting
bets in Italy. The Court pointed out there were other means of 💪 checking the accounts
and activities of such companies. ( )
85. In Placanica and Others, the Court was once
again confronted 💪 with the Italian law on betting on sporting events after the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) took the view that 💪 the law in question was compatible
with Articles 43 and 49 EC. The Italian court found that that the true 💪 purpose of the
Italian legislation was not to protect consumers by limiting their propensity to
gamble, but to channel betting 💪 and gaming activities into systems that are
controllable, with the objective of preventing their operation for criminal
purposes.
86. The Court 💪 stated that, in so far as that was the only aim of the
licensing system laid down by the Italian 💪 law, a ‘policy of controlled expansion’ in
the betting and gaming sector may be entirely consistent with the objective of 💪 drawing
players away from clandestine betting and gaming to activities which are authorised and
regulated. According to the Court, in 💪 order to achieve that objective, authorised
operators must represent a reliable, but at the same time attractive, alternative to a
💪 prohibited activity, and this may necessitate the offer of an extensive range of games,
advertising on a certain scale and 💪 the use of new distribution techniques. ( )
87. As
the facts referred to by the Italian Government showed that clandestine 💪 betting and
gaming were a considerable problem in Italy, the Court concluded that a licensing
system may constitute an efficient 💪 mechanism enabling operators active in the betting
and gaming sector to be controlled with a view to preventing the operation 💪 of those
activities for criminal or fraudulent purposes. ( )
88. However, the Court confirmed
that the law in question appeared 💪 disproportionate in that it prevented companies whose
shares are quoted on the regulated markets of other Member States from being 💪 able to
obtain licences for the business of sporting betting in Italy. ( )
B – National law
a)
Information provided by 💪 the referring court
89. Article 2 of Decree-Law No 282/2003 of
8 November 2003 ( ) grants the Santa Casa the 💪 monopoly for the operation by electronic
means of State gambling of a social nature, that is to say, of lotteries 💪 and off-course
betting. The monopoly covers the entire national territory, including radioelectric
space, the internet and any other public telecommunications 💪 network.
90. Under Article
11(1)(a) and (b) of Decree-Law No 282/2003 the following are illegal:
– the promotion,
organisation or operation by 💪 electronic means of State gambling of a social nature
(that is to say, lotteries and off-course betting) in contravention of 💪 the monopoly
rules;
– the advertising of those number lotteries, whether they take place in national
territory or not.
2. Additional information 💪 provided by the Portuguese Government
91.
In Portugal games of chance and gambling are prohibited in principle. Nevertheless, the
State has 💪 reserved the right to authorise, in accordance with the system it deems the
most appropriate, the operation of one or 💪 more games, directly or through a body under
its control, or to grant the right to operate games to private 💪 entities, whether
non-profit-making or not, by calls for tender.
a) The types of games
92. The Portuguese
legislation distinguishes between three categories 💪 of games of chance and gambling,
namely casino games, lotteries, tombolas and publicity competitions, and games of lotto
and betting.
i) 💪 Casino games
93. Casino games comprise table games such as roulette and
poker, as well as other types of games such 💪 as bingo and slot machines.
94. The
operation of these games is regulated by Decree-law No 422/89 of 2 December 1989, 💪 ( )
which was considered by the Court in Anomar and Others.
95. The right to operate casino
games is in 💪 principle reserved by the State and it can be exercised only by
undertakings constituted in the form of limited companies 💪 licensed by the State, by an
administrative contract. These games are permitted only in casinos in gaming zones
created and 💪 defined by legislative measure.
96. There are at present nine casinos of
that type operating in Portugal and licences have recently 💪 been granted for four
others.
ii) Lotteries, tombolas and publicity competitions
97. This category of games
comprises lotteries, tombolas, draws, publicity competitions, 💪 general knowledge
contests and pastimes. They are subject to prior licensing by the Government, which is
granted case by case 💪 on specific conditions.
98. In practice, this category of games
has no commercial impact in Portugal.
iii) Lotto games and betting
99. This 💪 category of
games comprises all games in which the contestants predict the results of one or more
contests or draws. 💪 These games are known in Portugal as ‘games of a social nature’ or
‘State games of a social nature’.
100. The 💪 operation of these games is regulated by
Decree-Law No 84/85 of 28 March 1985. ( )
101. Under Article 1(1) of 💪 that Decree-Law,
the right to promote lotto games and betting is reserved by the State, which grants the
Santa Casa 💪 the exclusive right to organise and operate them throughout Portugal.
102.
According to the statements in the preambles to the measures 💪 providing for this
exclusive right, the Portuguese Government considered that it could no longer overlook
the fact that such gaming 💪 was carried on clandestinely, together with the excesses to
which it gave rise. The Government’s purpose was therefore to give 💪 it a legal framework
so as to ensure that gaming was fair and to limit its excesses. The Government also
💪 intended that the revenue from gaming, which was morally reprehensible in the culture
of that Member State, should not be 💪 a source of private profit, but should serve to
finance social causes or causes of general interest.
103. Originally the Santa 💪 Casa
organised contests called ‘Totobola’ and ‘Totoloto’. The former covers games in which
the contestants predict the results of one 💪 or more sporting events. The latter covers
all games in which the contestants predict the results of drawing numbers by 💪 lot .
104.
The range of games was subsequently extended in 1993 to include ‘Joker’; ( ) in 1994
‘Lotaria instantânia’, 💪 an instant game with a scratch card, commonly called
‘raspadinha’; ( ) in 1998 ‘Totogolo’, ( ) and in 2004 💪 ‘Euromilhões’, or European lotto.
( )
105. In 2003 the legal framework of lotto games and betting was adapted to take
💪 account of technical developments enabling the games to be offered by electronic
medium, in particular the internet. These measures appear 💪 in Decree-Law 282/2003 and
they aim, in substance, first, to license the Santa Casa to sell its products by
electronic 💪 medium and, secondly, to extend the Santa Casa’s exclusive right of
operation to include games offered by electronic medium, in 💪 particular the
internet.
106. Article 12(1) of Decree‑Law No 282/2003 sets the maximum and minimum
fines for the administrative offences laid 💪 down in Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of that
Decree-Law. For natural persons, the fine is to be not less than 💪 EUR 2 000 or more than
three times the total amount deemed to have been collected from organising the game,
💪 provided that the triple figure is greater than EUR 2 000 but does not exceed a maximum
of EUR 44 💪 890.
b) The regulations of the Santa Casa
107. The Santa Casa is a social
solidarity institution established on 15 August 1498. 💪 It has always been devoted to
charitable work for assisting the most disadvantaged.
108. In Portugal, State games of
a social 💪 nature are assigned to the Santa Casa. The ‘Lotaria Nacional’ (national
lottery), established by a royal edict of 18 November 💪 1783, was contracted out to that
institution and the contract was renewed regularly. In 1961 the Santa Casa was granted
💪 the exclusive right to organise other forms of lotto games and betting such as Totobola
and, in 1985, Totoloto.
109. The 💪 activities of the Santa Casa are regulated by
Decree-Law No 322/91 of 26 August 1991. ( )
110. According to its 💪 statutes, the Santa
Casa is a ‘legal person in the public administrative interest’, that is to say, a
private legal 💪 person, recognised by the authorities as pursuing non-profit-making
objects of general interest.
111. The administrative organs of the Santa Casa consist
💪 of a director, appointed by decree of the Prime Minister, and a board of management
whose members are appointed by 💪 decrees of the members of the Government under whose
supervision the Santa Casa falls.
112. The operation of games of chance 💪 falls within
the responsibilities of the Gaming Department of the Santa Casa, which has its own
administrative and control organs.
113. 💪 The administrative organ of the Gaming
Department consists of the director of the Santa Casa, who is the ex officio 💪 chairman,
and two deputy directors appointed by joint decree of the Minister of Employment and
Solidarity and the Minister of 💪 Health.
114. Each type of game of chance organised by
the Santa Casa is instituted separately by a decree-law and the 💪 entire organisation and
operation of the game, including the amount of stakes, the system for awarding prizes,
the frequency of 💪 draws, the specific percentage of each prize, methods of collecting
stakes, the method of selecting authorised distributors, the methods and 💪 periods for
payment of prizes, are governed by government regulation.
115. The members of the
competition committee, the draw committee and 💪 the claims committee are mostly
representatives of the public authorities. The chairman of the claims committee, who
has a casting 💪 vote, is a judge.
116. The Gaming Department has a budget and its own
accounts which are annexed to the budget 💪 and the accounts of the Santa Casa, and as
such are under government supervision.
117. The Gaming Department has administrative
authority 💪 powers to open and organise proceedings concerning offences of illegal
operation of games of chance in relation to which the 💪 Santa Casa has the exclusive
rights, and to investigate such offences.
118. Article 14 of Decree-Law No 282/2003
confers upon the 💪 Gaming Department the necessary administrative powers to impose fines
such as those imposed on the Liga and Baw.
119. An appeal 💪 may be lodged against any
decision of the Gaming Department in contravention cases and any other decision with
effect outside 💪 the Gaming Department, such as decisions concerning the purchase of
goods and services and the grant of authorisation to third 💪 parties to sell tickets for
games of a social nature.
120. The Santa Casa has specific tasks in the areas of
💪 protection of the family, mothers and children, help for unprotected minors at risk,
assistance for old people, social situations of 💪 serious deprivation and primary and
specialised health care.
121. Under the law in force at the material time, the Santa
Casa 💪 retains only 25% of the earnings from the various games. The balance is shared
among other public-interest institutions such as 💪 associations of voluntary firemen,
private social solidarity institutions, establishments for the safety and
rehabilitation of handicapped persons, the cultural development 💪 fund or social
projects. Accordingly 50% of the earnings from Totobola go towards the promotion and
development of football and 💪 16% of the earnings from Totoloto serve to finance sports
activities.
III – The main proceedings and the question referred
122. The 💪 Liga is a
private-law legal person with the structure of a non‑profit‑making association. It
brings together all the clubs taking 💪 part in football competitions at professional
level in Portugal. It is responsible for the commercial operation of the competitions
it 💪 organises.
123. Bwin is an on-line gaming undertaking with registered office in
Gibraltar. It offers games of chance on its Portuguese-language 💪 website. It is governed
by the special legislation of Gibraltar on the regulation of games of chance and has
obtained 💪 all the requisite licences from the Government of Gibraltar. Bwin has no
establishment in Portugal. Its servers for the on-line 💪 service are in Gibraltar and
Austria. All bets are placed directly by the consumer on Bwin’s website or by some
💪 other means of direct communication.
124. Bwin offers a wide range of on-line games of
chance covering sporting bets, lotto and 💪 casino games such as roulette and poker.
Betting is on the results of football matches and other sports such as 💪 rugby, formula 1
motor racing and American basketball.
125. The referring court states that the Liga and
Bwin are charged with 💪 the following offences:
– concluding a sponsorship agreement for
four playing seasons starting in 2005/2006, under which Bwin is the institutional
💪 sponsor of the First National Football Division, previously known as the ‘Super Liga’,
which is now called ‘Liga betandwin’;
– under 💪 that agreement, Bwin acquired rights
allowing it to display the logo ‘betandwin’ on the sports kit worn by the players 💪 of
the clubs whose teams take part in the Super Liga championship and to affix the logo
‘betandwin’ in the 💪 stadiums of those clubs; in addition, the Liga’s internet site began
to include a reference and a link enabling access 💪 to Bwin’s website;
– the Bwin site
makes it possible to place sporting bets electronically, whereby the participants
predict the result 💪 of football matches taking place each day in the Super Liga, and of
football matches abroad, in order to win 💪 money prizes; the same site also makes it
possible to play lottery games electronically, in which the participants predict the
💪 results of drawing numbers by lot.
126. The directors of the Gaming Department of the
Santa Casa fined the Liga and 💪 Bwin EUR 75 000 and EUR 74 500 respectively for
promoting, organising and operating electronically, as accomplices, State gaming of 💪 a
social nature, that is to say, off-course betting, and for advertising such gaming
electronically, contrary to the monopoly provided 💪 for by national law.
127. The Liga
and Bwin brought an action for the annulment of those decisions on the basis 💪 of
Community rules and case-law.
128. The Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto
(Portugal) decided to stay the proceedings and 💪 to refer the following question to the
Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘In essence, the question is whether the monopoly
granted 💪 to the Santa Casa, when relied on against [Bwin], that is to say, against a
provider of services established in 💪 another Member State in which it lawfully provides
similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitutes an
impediment 💪 to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to
provide services, freedom of establishment and 💪 the free movement of payments enshrined
in Articles 49 [EC], 43 [EC] and 56 [EC].
This court seeks therefore to know 💪 whether it
is contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules
of domestic law such as 💪 those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a
monopoly in favour of a single body for the 💪 operation of lotteries and off-course
betting and then to extend that monopoly to “the entire national territory, including …
the 💪 internet”.’
IV – Analysis
A – Admissibility of the question referred
129. The
question from the national court seeks to establish whether its 💪 national law, whereby
the exclusive right conferred on a single non-profit-making entity controlled by the
State to organise and operate 💪 lotteries and off-course betting in the whole of
Portuguese territory is extended to all electronic means of communication, in
particular 💪 the internet, is compatible with Community law.
130. The Italian,
Netherlands and Norwegian Governments and the Commission dispute or question the
💪 admissibility of the question on the ground that the order for reference does not
provide sufficient information on the nature 💪 and the aims of the Portuguese legislation
applicable to the main proceedings.
131. I do not think the question can be 💪 ruled
inadmissible.
132. The national court’s description of its national legislation makes
it clear that it, first, grants the Santa Casa 💪 an exclusive right to organise and
operate lotteries and off-course betting on the internet and, second, provides for
penalties for 💪 operators who disregard that monopoly. Likewise, the account of the facts
describes the issue in the main proceedings. Furthermore, the 💪 order for reference shows
that the national court is uncertain as to whether the Portuguese legislation is
compatible with Community 💪 law in so far as the former prevents an operator legally
pursuing its activities in a Member State of the 💪 European Union from providing services
in Portugal.
133. No doubt, in the light of the criteria developed in the Court’s
case-law 💪 on the basis of which the compatibility with Community law of a national
measure concerning games of chance and betting 💪 must be assessed, I could have expected
the national court to give a fuller account of its domestic law and 💪 the implementation
thereof, with regard to the Santa Casa’s monopoly, together with the reasons why the
monopoly has been extended 💪 to games of chance and gambling on the internet. It would
also have been desirable for the national court to 💪 state the reasons why the Court’s
previous judgments did not answer those questions and did not enable the national court
💪 to give judgment in the main proceedings.
134. However, the lack of information in the
order for reference does not justify 💪 dismissing the question as inadmissible.
135. The
question concerns the interpretation of Community law as it is necessary to interpret
the 💪 articles of the Treaty establishing the freedoms of movement. The question is
relevant to the outcome of the main proceedings 💪 because, if the relevant freedom of
movement were interpreted by the Court as meaning that it precludes the grant of
💪 exclusive rights of that kind, the action brought by the Liga and Bwin would have to be
ruled well-founded.
136. Finally, 💪 the information provided by the national court is
sufficient to enable the Court to give a helpful reply, at least 💪 to the question
whether the grant of exclusive rights to a single entity in relation to the
organisation and operation 💪 of games of chance and gambling on the internet is, in
principle or necessarily, contrary to Community law.
137. According to 💪 settled
case-law, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been
brought, and which must assume 💪 responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to
determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the 💪 need for a
preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the
questions which 💪 it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted
concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice 💪 is, in principle,
bound to give a ruling. ( )
138. It is true that the Court has also held that, 💪 in
exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred
to it by the national court 💪 It is regularly observed in judgments giving preliminary
rulings that ‘the spirit of cooperation which must prevail in [such] proceedings
💪 requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to
the Court of Justice, which 💪 is to contribute to the administration of justice in the
Member States and not to give opinions on general or 💪 hypothetical questions’. ( )
139.
Accordingly, the Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary
ruling on 💪 a question submitted by a national court where it is quite obvious that the
interpretation or the assessment of the 💪 validity of a provision of Community law sought
by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the 💪 main action or its purpose,
or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary 💪 to
give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. ( )
140. The question at present
before the Court 💪 does not fall within any of those cases.
141. I also wish to point out
that, in spite of the lack 💪 of information from the national court concerning the nature
and the purpose of its national law, nine Member States other 💪 than the Portuguese
Republic have been able to submit written observations, in addition to the latter, the
parties to the 💪 main proceedings and the Commission.
142. It transpires, however, that
the Liga and Bwin, as well as the interveners, in particular 💪 the Portuguese Government,
have set out in detail the substance and the aims of the legislation in question and
that 💪 these matters were discussed at length in the oral procedure. Therefore the Court
could go further than examining only the 💪 question whether a national measure granting a
single entity the exclusive right to offer off-course betting on the internet is 💪 in
principle compatible with Community law.
143. The Italian Government also argues that
the question referred is inadmissible on the ground 💪 that the national court is
requesting the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the compatibility of its domestic
💪 law with Community law.
144. No doubt, as the Italian Government says, and in
accordance with settled case-law, in accordance with 💪 the division of responsibilities
under the cooperative arrangements established by Article 234 EC, the interpretation of
provisions of national law 💪 is a matter for the national courts, not for the Court of
Justice, and the Court has no jurisdiction, in 💪 proceedings brought on the basis of that
article, to rule on the compatibility of national rules with Community law. ( 💪 )
145.
However, even if the question referred has to be construed in the way suggested by the
Italian Government, it 💪 would still not be inadmissible. Where the Court is expressly
questioned on the compatibility of a national provision with Community 💪 law, the Court
rewords the question in accordance with its powers and points out that it does have
jurisdiction to 💪 provide the national court with all the guidance as to the
interpretation of Community law necessary to enable that court 💪 to rule on the
compatibility of those national rules with Community law. ( )
146. I therefore propose
that the Court 💪 should find that the question from the national court is admissible.
B –
Substance of the case
147. According to the information 💪 from the national court, the
provisions of Article 11(1)(a) and (b) of Decree-Law No 282/2003 prohibit, first, the
organisation and 💪 operation of lotteries and off-course betting on the internet,
contrary to the exclusive right conferred upon the Santa Casa and, 💪 second, advertising
them on line, contrary to that right.
148. It is also clear that the Liga and Bwin were
fined 💪 EUR 75 000 and EUR 74 500 respectively for, first, organising and operating
off-course betting on the internet, contrary to 💪 the Santa Casa’s exclusive right, and,
second, advertising such betting.
149. Consequently it seems to me that the
compatibility of the 💪 national law in question with Community law must be assessed by
reference to two sets of provisions. First, in so 💪 far as it confers upon the Santa Casa
an exclusive right to offer lotteries and betting on the internet and 💪 prevents any
other service provider established within the Union from offering such services on line
in Portugal, the legislation in 💪 question may be covered by Directive 98/34. Second, in
so far as it prohibits all advertising for lotteries and off-course 💪 betting organised
contrary to the Santa Casa’s exclusive right, such legislation may fall within the
ambit of Article 49 EC.
1. 💪 Application of Directive 98/34
150. It is necessary to
determine whether Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34 must be interpreted as meaning 💪 that
a national measure whereby the exclusive right to organise and operate lotteries and
off-course betting in the whole of 💪 national territory is extended to all electronic
means of communication, in particular the internet, is a technical rule within the
💪 meaning of that provision.
151. In its written observations, the Commission argued that
the legislation in question was within the ambit 💪 of Directive 98/34.
152. The
interveners, which were asked state their position on that point in the oral procedure,
took different 💪 positions. The Liga and Bwin agree with the Commission’s analysis.
153.
The Portuguese Government points out that Directive 93/84 was not 💪 relied upon by the
Liga and Bwin in the context of the main proceedings and that the national court raised
💪 no question concerning the directive. The Government adds that it is for the national
court to ascertain the Community law 💪 applicable to the dispute which is to be
determined and concludes that the Directive is not relevant in the present 💪 case.
154.
In the alternative, the Portuguese Government claims that Directive 98/34 did not
require Portugal to notify the Commission of 💪 the legislation in question. The
Government notes that games of chance and gambling were excluded from the ambit of
Directive 💪 2000/31 on electronic commerce and Directive 2006/123 on services in the
internal market.
155. The Danish Government, supported by the Greek 💪 Government, takes
the same view as the Portuguese Government. In addition, it states that the disputed
legislation, which prohibits the 💪 operation of a certain activity in the territory of a
State, is similar to national law which makes an occupational 💪 activity conditional on
the grant of authorisation and that, according to the case-law, such legislation does
not constitute a technical 💪 regulation. The Danish Government submits that that term is
interpreted by the case-law as meaning specifications defining the characteristics of
💪 products. ( )
156. The Greek Government also considers that a national law providing
for a State monopoly of games of 💪 chance and gambling does not fall within the scope of
Directive 98/34.
157. I do not agree with the position of 💪 those governments. First of
all, I shall show that it is open to the Court to interpret the provisions of 💪 Directive
98/34 although the national court’s question does not relate to it. Next, I shall set
out the reasons why, 💪 in my view, the disputed legislation falls within the scope of the
Directive. I shall also describe the consequences of 💪 failure to give notice of such
legislation. Finally, in view of the Member States’ observations on the relevance of
Directive 💪 98/34 for the outcome of the main proceedings, it seems to me useful to
mention that the judgment to be 💪 given binds the national court with regard, inter alia,
to the interpretation of the Directive, as the case may be.
a) 💪 The Court’s opportunity
to interpret Directive 98/34, although the national court does not refer to it
158. The
fact that the 💪 Court may interpret Directive 98/34 although the national court has not
submitted a question on it is clear from settled 💪 case-law. Where the Court considers
that the national court has not questioned it on the provision of Community law
applicable 💪 in the main proceedings, it examines of its own motion the meaning of that
provision. Accordingly, as has often been 💪 said, in order to provide a satisfactory
answer to the national court which has referred a question to it, the 💪 Court of Justice
may deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national
court has not 💪 referred in its question. ( )
159. It follows that where, as in the
present case, the national court has questioned 💪 the Court on the meaning of the Treaty
articles establishing the freedoms of movement, the Court may reply by interpreting 💪 a
directive which specially regulates the facts of the main proceedings. ( )
b) The
contested provisions fall within the scope 💪 of Directive 98/34
160. Contrary to the
Member States which have stated their position on this question, I am of the 💪 opinion,
like the Liga and Bwin as well as the Commission, that the contested provisions are
‘technical regulations’ within the 💪 meaning of Directive 98/34 in so far as they
prohibit any other operator from offering lotteries and off-course betting on 💪 the
internet in Portugal.
161. I base my position on, first, the definitions of ‘service’
and ‘technical regulation’ in the directive.
162. 💪 Thus an ‘Information Society
service’, within the meaning of Article 1, point 2, of Directive 98/34, is any service
normally 💪 provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the
individual request of a recipient of services. However, 💪 it is clear from the nineteenth
recital of the preamble to the directive that it is also necessary to refer 💪 to the
definition of ‘services’ in Article 50 EC, as interpreted in the Court’s case-law.
163.
As we have already seen, 💪 the case-law shows that a provider established in one Member
State who offers by internet, without moving from that State, 💪 games on line to
recipients established in another Member State provides services within the meaning of
Article 50 EC. ( 💪 )
164. Next, Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34 expressly states that
the term ‘technical regulation’ covers rules prohibiting the provision or 💪 use of a
service. Therefore, contrary to the position adopted by several Member States, since
the ambit of Directive 98/34 💪 was extended to Information Society services, ‘technical
regulation’ has not been confined to specifications defining the characteristics of
products, as 💪 was the case under Directive 83/189/EEC, ( ) as interpreted in the
judgments cited above, CIA Security International, ( )van 💪 der Burg, ( ) and Canal
Satélite Digital, ( ) to which those States refer.
165. The contested provisions, which
give 💪 the Santa Casa an exclusive right to organise and operate lotteries and off-course
betting on the internet in the whole 💪 of Portugal and which lay down penalties for any
operator which disregards that exclusive right, does have the effect of 💪 prohibiting a
provider of games on the internet from providing its services.
166. Having regard to
the abovementioned definitions, the provisions 💪 in question constitute a ‘technical
regulation’ within the meaning of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34.
167. In the second
place, this 💪 conclusion seems to me to accord with the reasons why the ambit of the
directive was extended to Information Society 💪 services.
168. It is clear from the
preamble to Directive 98/48 that the Community legislature aimed to extend to specific
services 💪 of that kind the system of transparency and supervision originally provided
for in relation only to goods, so as to 💪 avoid the barriers to the free movement of such
services which could be caused by national regulations.
169. The application of 💪 the
mandatory notification system provided for by Directive 98/34 to such regulations does
not mean that they are contrary to 💪 Community law.
170. As we have seen, Directive 98/34
aims only to establish a system of preventive control. First, by requiring 💪 Member
States to notify the Commission of any draft technical regulation, the Community
legislature asks them to carry out a 💪 prior detailed check of its conformity with
Community law. Consequently the directive has the effect of making it clear that, 💪 if
the proposed regulation impedes the free movement of goods or the freedom to provide
Information Society services, the Member 💪 State must be able to justify it in conformity
with the conditions laid down by the case-law.
171. The notification system 💪 provided
for by Directive 98/34 then enables the Commission and the other Member States to
examine the draft regulation to 💪 see whether it creates barriers. If so, the other
Member States may propose that the author of the draft should 💪 amend it. The Commission
for its part may propose or adopt joint measures regulating the topic which is the
subject 💪 of the proposed measure.
172. Such a system reconciles the sovereign power of
the Member States to adopt technical regulations in 💪 fields where they have not been
harmonised with the obligation they have undertaken to each other in the Treaty to
💪 establish a common market, that is to say, a space within which goods and services in
particular circulate freely.
173. It 💪 follows that Directive 98/34 is really effective
only if all technical regulations are notified, ( ) including those relating to 💪 games
of chance and gambling, because these constitute an economic activity and are covered
by the freedom of establishment and 💪 the freedom to provide services.
174. In addition,
we find that, where the Community legislature wished to exclude games of chance 💪 and
gambling from a measure relating to services, such as Directive 2000/31 on electronic
commerce and Directive 2006/123 on services 💪 in the internal market, it provided for
such exclusion expressly. However, Directive 98/34 contains no provision excluding
technical regulations concerning 💪 games of chance and gambling from its ambit.
175. In
the third place, this reasoning seems to be in conformity with 💪 the Court’s position in
Commission v Greece, concerning the Greek law prohibiting the use of games on computers
in undertakings 💪 providing internet services. The Court found that such measures must be
considered to be ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning of 💪 Article 1(11) of
Directive 98/34. ( )
176. In the abovementioned judgment the Court found that a measure
of a Member 💪 State such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits access
to internet games, concerns access to or 💪 the provision of Information Society services
and is therefore within the ambit of Directive 98/34.
177. Consequently I propose that
the 💪 Court’s reply to the national court should be that Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34
must be interpreted as meaning that 💪 a measure of a Member State whereby an exclusive
right to organise and operate lotteries and off-course betting in the 💪 entire territory
of that State is extended to all means of electronic communication, in particular the
internet, constitutes a ‘technical 💪 regulation’ within the meaning of that provision. (
)
c) The consequences of failing to give notice of the contested measures
178. 💪 Article
8(1) of Directive 98/34 requires the Member States to notify the Commission of any
draft technical regulation. ( ) 💪 Article 9 requires them to postpone the adoption of any
such regulation for such period as the Commission may determine.
179. 💪 According to
those provisions, the draft Decree-Law No 282/2003 which, first, extends the Santa
Casa’s exclusive right to operate games 💪 offered by electronic medium, in particular the
internet, and, secondly, provides for administrative fines on operators who infringe
that right, 💪 ought to have been notified to the Commission.
180. In its written
observations, the Commission stated that it was not notified 💪 of the draft Decree-Law.
The Portuguese Government confirmed that it had not notified the Commission.
181. In
CIA Security International, the 💪 Court described the consequences of failure to notify
the Commission. The Court took the view that the obligations of notification 💪 and
postponement laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 83/189 are unconditional and
sufficiently precise to be relied 💪 on by individuals before national courts. ( ) A
technical regulation which has not been notified is therefore inapplicable to
💪 individuals and national courts must decline to apply it. ( )
182. That case-law can be
applied to Articles 8 and 💪 9 of Directive 98/34 as they in similar terms to those of
Directive 83/189.
183. As Directive 98/34 aims in particular 💪 to protect the freedom to
provide Information Society services, an operator such as Bwin, established in
Gibraltar, has a right 💪 to avail itself of those precise and unconditional
provisions.
184. Gibraltar is a European territory for whose external relations the
United 💪 Kingdom is responsible. Consequently the Treaty provisions are applicable to it
in accordance with Article 299(4) EC, subject to the 💪 exclusions provided for in the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom and
the 💪 adjustments to the treaties. ( )
185. The Court has concluded from the Act that the
Treaty rules on free movement 💪 of goods and the rules of secondary Community legislation
intended, as regards free circulation of goods, to ensure approximation of 💪 the laws of
the Member States, do not apply to Gibraltar. ( )
186. However, those exclusions must,
in my view, 💪 be deemed exceptions to the principle laid down in Article 299(4) EC that
the provisions of the Treaty apply to 💪 a European territory such as Gibraltar. Therefore
the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services and the secondary legislation
💪 adopted to ensure the establishment of that freedom apply to Gibraltar. To prove this,
I wish to cite the judgments 💪 in actions brought by the Commission against the United
Kingdom for failing to implement such directives on its territory. ( 💪 )
187. I conclude
from this that an operator such as Bwin, established in Gibraltar, has a right to plead
Articles 💪 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34 in so far as they relate to technical regulations
concerning Information Society services.
188. The 💪 fact that the provisions in question
are included in a measure which also relates to the free movement of goods 💪 does not
seem to me inconsistent with that conclusion. A technical regulation may be clearly
connected with the free movement 💪 of goods or the freedom to provide Information Society
services on the basis of the delimitation of the respective fields 💪 to which those
freedoms apply, as defined by the Court.
189. In conformity with the position taken by
the Court in 💪 CIA Security International, if the Commission was not duly notified of the
national provisions in question, in so far as, 💪 first, they grant the Santa Casa an
exclusive right to organise and operate lotteries and off-course betting on the
internet 💪 and, second, they provide for administrative fines on providers of services
who, in breach of that right, offer internet games 💪 to persons residing in Portugal,
those national provisions are not applicable as against Bwin and the national court
must decline 💪 to apply them.
190. This conclusion should also apply to the Liga, which
was fined as Bwin’s accomplice for organising and 💪 operating off-course betting by
electronic means.
191. The national court, which alone has jurisdiction to establish
the facts in the main 💪 proceedings, will have to determine whether the draft Decree-Law
282/2003 which aims, in substance, to extend the Santa Casa’s exclusive 💪 right to
operate games offered by electronic media, in particular the internet, and to impose a
penalty in the form 💪 of a fine for infringing that exclusive right, was notified to the
Commission in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 💪 98/34.
192. The national court
will also have to draw the appropriate conclusions with regard to the fines imposed on
the 💪 Liga and Bwin as the fines relate to the organisation and operation of off-course
betting on the internet, in breach 💪 of the Santa Casa’s exclusive right.
d) The effects
of the Court’s judgment for the referring court
193. The replies given by 💪 several
Member States in the course of the hearing to the question concerning the relevance of
Directive 98/34 to the 💪 outcome of the main proceedings could be understood as meaning
that the judgment which will give a preliminary ruling would 💪 not, according to those
States, be binding on the referring court in so far as it relates to the interpretation
💪 of the abovementioned directive.
194. I take the opposite view. Judgments giving a
preliminary ruling are binding on the referring court 💪 even where the Court of Justice
rules on a Community-law measure to which the question from the national court does 💪 not
refer.
195. I base this conclusion on, first, the relationship between Community law
and national law and, secondly, the function 💪 of the preliminary ruling procedure.
196.
On the first point, as the Court observed in van Gend en Loos ( ) 💪 and Costa ( ) by
signing and ratifying the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, the
Member States agreed that 💪 the Treaty and the measures adopted on the basis thereof
should form part of their national law, should take precedence 💪 to any contrary national
rule, whatever it may be, and should be intended to create rights directly in favour of
💪 individuals.
197. They also undertook to take all appropriate measures to ensure the
effective application of Community law and that obligation 💪 must be accepted by their
judicial authorities. Consequently national courts have an obligation to maintain the
rights conferred by measures 💪 of the Community legal order.
198. The national courts
must of their own motion refuse to apply any provision of national 💪 legislation
conflicting with directly applicable Community law, without having to request or await
the prior setting-aside of such legislation in 💪 the internal system. ( ) If a Community
measure is not directly applicable, the national court must interpret the whole 💪 of its
national law so far as possible so as to achieve the result intended by that measure,
in accordance 💪 with the requirement of interpretation in conformity with Community law.
( )
199. Therefore the national court’s task is to ensure 💪 the effective application of
Community law.
200. It is true that the national court discharges those obligations in
conformity with its 💪 domestic rules of procedure, in accordance with the principle of
procedural autonomy, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness 💪 by
virtue of which, first, those rules must not be less favourable than those applicable
to maintain the rights conferred 💪 by domestic law and, second, they must not be framed
in such a way as to render impossible in practice 💪 or excessively difficult the exercise
of rights conferred by Community law. ( )
201. Where, in the context of a dispute
💪 before a national court, the parties have not invoked the relevant Community rule, it
may happen that that rule is 💪 not applied, as the Court’s case-law concerning the
significance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness stands at present.
202.
According 💪 to the Court’s case-law, a national court must raise of its own motion the
relevant point of Community law where, 💪 under national law, it must or may do so in
relation to a binding rule of national law. ( ) 💪 On the other hand, it is not obliged to
do so where it has no such obligation or option under 💪 national law and where the
parties were given a genuine opportunity to raise a plea based on Community law in 💪 the
course of the proceedings. ( ) Furthermore, national courts are not required to raise
of their own motion a 💪 plea alleging infringement of Community provisions where
examination of that plea would oblige them to go beyond the ambit of 💪 the dispute as
defined by the parties. ( )
203. However, those limits to the application of Community
law cannot be 💪 transposed where the Court, in the context of preliminary ruling
proceedings, examines of its own motion the rule applicable to 💪 the facts of the main
proceedings.
204. The object of the preliminary ruling procedure is to secure the
uniform interpretation of 💪 Community law by national courts and tribunals. ( ) Uniform
interpretation can be secured only if the Court’s judgments are 💪 binding on national
courts. As the Court observed in Benedetti, ( ) a preliminary ruling is binding on the
national 💪 court as to the interpretation of the Community provisions and acts in
question.
205. The binding nature of the ruling is 💪 also the corollary of the national
courts’ obligation to ensure the effective application of Community law.
206. This
reasoning is confirmed 💪 by the third paragraph of Article 234 EC, which states that a
reference for a preliminary ruling is mandatory where 💪 a question on the interpretation
of Community law arises before a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no
💪 judicial remedy under national law. In order to prevent Community law from being
infringed, a court against whose decisions there 💪 is no judicial remedy under national
law, which is by nature the last judicial body before which individuals may assert 💪 the
rights conferred on them by Community law, is required to make a reference to the Court
of Justice. ( 💪 )
207. This reasoning is supported by the judgment in a case where it was
held that a manifest infringement of 💪 Community law by a court adjudicating at last
instance was likely to give rise to liability on the part of 💪 the State, ( ) and also
where an action for failure to fulfil obligations could be brought against a Member
💪 State by reason of a national judicial interpretation contrary to Community law, where
that interpretation is confirmed or not disowned 💪 by the supreme court. ( )
208.
Consequently the object of the preliminary ruling procedure itself is to ensure the
effective 💪 application of Community law. That is why, contrary to the submissions of the
Portuguese Government, the Court cannot be bound 💪 by the national court’s assessment
with regard to the Community provisions applicable to the facts of the main
proceedings. The 💪 Court’s task is to give the national court a reply which is of help to
the outcome of the dispute 💪 which it must determine, that is to say, which enables it to
perform its function of ensuring the effective application 💪 of Community law.
209. In
addition, the Court’s examination of a point of Community law of its own motion which
was 💪 not raised by the national court would be of little use if the preliminary ruling,
in so far it related 💪 to that point, were not binding on that court.
210. The fact that
the parties to the main proceedings did not 💪 refer, before the national court, to the
provision of Community law examined by the Court of its own motion is 💪 not an obstacle
to the binding effect of the preliminary ruling in so far as the parties had an
opportunity 💪 to make their observations on that provision known in the course of the
preliminary ruling procedure. It must be observed 💪 that, in the present case, the
parties were asked by the Court, prior to the hearing, to submit in the 💪 course of the
hearing their observations on the relevance of Directive 98/34 to the outcome of the
main proceedings.
211. It 💪 follows that preliminary rulings are, in my opinion,
necessarily binding where the Court interprets a provision of Community law to 💪 which
the national court has not referred.
212. Consequently I propose that the Court’s reply
to the national court should, in 💪 addition, rule that a preliminary ruling binds the
referring court even in so far as the ruling relates to a 💪 provision of Community law
that was not referred to in the national court’s question.
2. The compatibility of the
national legislation 💪 in issue with the freedoms of movement
213. Even if the Court
concurs with my reasoning concerning the relevance of Directive 💪 98/34 to the present
case and the consequences of failure to notify the Commission, an examination of the
compatibility of 💪 the national law in question with the freedoms of movement, in so far
as it prohibits advertising of on-line games 💪 organised and operated in breach of the
Santa Casa’s exclusive right, does not appear to be manifestly irrelevant to the
💪 outcome of the main proceedings.
214. It is for the national court to determine whether
the fact that Decree-Law No 282/2003, 💪 in so far as it grants the Santa Casa an
exclusive right to organise and operate lotteries and off-course betting 💪 on the
internet, is unenforceable as against the Liga and Bwin, must lead to setting aside the
whole of the 💪 single fine imposed on each of them or whether the amount of the fine
should be divided between what is 💪 due on account of organising on-line games and what
is due on account of advertising them.
215. The question therefore is 💪 whether a
national measure prohibiting advertising for on-line games organised and operated in
breach of an exclusive right conferred on 💪 a single non‑profit‑making entity, is
inconsistent with the freedom to provide services.
216. To reply to that question, it
would certainly 💪 appear to be helpful to consider the question from the referring court
as to whether its national legislation granting the 💪 Santa Casa an exclusive right to
organise and operate in Portugal lotteries off‑course betting on the internet is
compatible with 💪 the freedoms of movement. If that exclusive right is consistent with
Community law, the question whether the prohibition of advertising 💪 lotteries and
off-course betting organised and operated in breach of that right is compatible with
Community law no longer arises.
217. 💪 The national court’s question seeks to establish
whether its national legislation which provides that the Santa Casa’s exclusive right
to 💪 organise and operate lotteries and off-course betting in the entire State territory
is extended to all means of electronic communication, 💪 in particular the internet, is
inconsistent with Community law and, in particular, the freedom to provide services,
the freedom of 💪 establishment and the free movement of capital and payments, as laid
down in Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 💪 EC.
218. At this stage of the discussion, it could
be asked whether the freedoms of movement are relevant to the 💪 main proceedings in view
of the fact that the Santa Casa has been granted a monopoly of the operation of
💪 lotteries and off-course betting on the internet on grounds of consumer protection and
safeguarding public order against the adverse effect 💪 of such gaming. A national
monopoly based on such grounds could be regarded as pursuing a public interest aim. (
💪 )
219. It could therefore have been asked whether the Santa Casa could avail itself of
Article 86(2) EC, which states 💪 that undertakings entrusted with the operation of
services of general economic interest are to be subject to the rules of 💪 the Treaty in
so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in
💪 fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.
220. However, neither the referring
court nor the Portuguese Government have mentioned those 💪 provisions. Assuming that they
had done so, I do not think an examination of the present case from the viewpoint 💪 of
Article 86(2) EC would have led to a different result from the reply which I am going
to propose 💪 should be given by the Court to the question from the referring court.
221.
In view of the case-law on the 💪 implications of Article 86(2) EC, the exception,
provided for by that Article, to the application of the rules of the 💪 Treaty aiming to
establish a common market can apply only if the task of the entity holding the monopoly
makes 💪 it necessary to set aside those rules. In other words, the applicability of the
exception is subject to proof that 💪 application of the rules would make it impossible to
perform that task. ( )
222. I believe that examination of that 💪 condition would have led
to consideration of the adequacy of the disputed legislation for achieving its aims and
of its 💪 proportionality comparable with the examination which I shall make in the
context of its compatibility by reference to the relevant 💪 freedom of movement.
223. I
shall show that the disputed legislation should, with regard to the facts of the main
proceedings, 💪 be examined by reference to Article 49 EC because it constitutes a
restriction within the meaning of that Article. I 💪 shall then consider whether such
legislation can be justified.
a) The relevant freedom of movement
224. Like the Liga,
Bwin, the Netherlands, 💪 Austrian and Portuguese Governments and also the Commission, I
am of the opinion that the compatibility of the legislation in 💪 question with Community
law must be examined by reference to the articles of the Treaty concerning the freedom
to provide 💪 services, and by reference to them alone.
225. It is clear from the
information provided by the referring court that Bwin 💪 is established in Gibraltar and
that it carries on its activities in Portugal by means of the internet. We have 💪 already
seen that it has been held that a provider established in one Member State who offers
by internet, without 💪 moving from that State, games on line to recipients established in
another Member State, provides services within the meaning of 💪 Article 50 EC. ( )
226.
It is true that the contested provisions, in so far as they reserve such activities 💪 for
the Santa Casa, are also capable of constituting a restriction of the freedom of
establishment. However, as Bwin has 💪 not sought to establish itself in Portugal, that
freedom of movement is not relevant to the outcome of the main 💪 proceedings. The Belgian
Government’s claim that the Liga acts de facto as Bwin’s intermediary does not refute
this conclusion.
227. It 💪 must be borne in mind that the freedom of establishment
confers upon companies or firms formed in accordance with the 💪 law of a Member State and
having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business
within the Community, 💪 the right to exercise their activity in the Member State
concerned through a subsidiary, a branch or an agency, ( 💪 ) that is to say, a secondary
establishment controlled by the company or firm in question. However, the agreement
between 💪 the applicants in the main proceedings does not have the object or effect of
placing the Liga under Bwin’s control 💪 or of making it a secondary establishment of
Bwin.
228. Finally, with regard to the free movement of capital and payments, 💪 it cannot
be denied that the contested provisions are capable of restricting payments between
persons residing in Portugal and Bwin. 💪 However, that is only a consequence of the fact
that the latter is prohibited from supplying on-line games services to 💪 persons residing
in Portuguese territory.
229. As the Commission correctly observes, given that the
restrictive effects of national legislation on the 💪 free movement of payments are merely
an inevitable consequence of the restriction imposed on the provision of services, it
is 💪 not necessary to consider whether that legislation is compatible with Article 56 EC.
( )
230. I therefore propose that Court 💪 should construe the referring court’s question
in the following way: must Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that it 💪 precludes
legislation of a Member State whereby the exclusive right to organise and operate
lotteries and off-course betting in the 💪 entire territory of that State conferred on a
single non-profit-making entity controlled by that State is extended to all means 💪 of
electronic communication, in particular the internet?
b) The existence of a
restriction
231. There appears to be no doubt, and the 💪 Portuguese Government does not
deny, that the provisions in question constitute a restriction of the freedom to
provide services.
232. Those 💪 provisions prohibit a provider of on-line games
established in a Member State other than the Portuguese Republic from offering
lotteries 💪 and off‑course betting on the internet to consumers residing in the latter
State. As we have seen, Article 49 EC 💪 requires the elimination of measures prohibiting
the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he
💪 lawfully provides similar services. Moreover, Article 49 EC is for the benefit of both
providers and recipients of services. ( 💪 )
233. Finally, it has already been held that
legislation of a Member State prohibiting an undertaking established in another Member
💪 State collecting bets from offering its services on the internet to recipients
established in the first State constitutes a restriction 💪 within the meaning of Article
49 EC. ( )
c) The justification for the restriction
234. A restriction such as that
provided 💪 for by the legislation in question conforms with Community law if it is
justified by an overriding reason relating to 💪 the public interest, if it is appropriate
for ensuring the attainment of the aim which it pursues and if it 💪 does not exceed what
is necessary for attaining it. In any event, it must not be applied in a discriminatory
💪 way.
235. In accordance with that principle common to all economic activities which
have not been harmonised, the Member State responsible 💪 for the restriction in question
must demonstrate that it is necessary in order to achieve the declared objective, and
that 💪 that objective could not be achieved by less restrictive measures. ( )
i)
Arguments of the parties
236. The Liga and Bwin 💪 assert that the Santa Casa’s exclusive
right to offer lotteries and off-course betting on the internet to consumers residing
in 💪 Portuguese territory amounts to the complete closure of the market for on-line games
in that State, which constitutes the most 💪 serious breach of the freedom to provide
services. They claim that the restriction is not justified.
237. According to the Liga
💪 and Bwin, Portugal ought to have demonstrated, first, that the problem alluded to by
the restrictive measure is really a 💪 serious problem in its territory, second, that that
measure is capable of remedying the problem and, finally, that there was 💪 no less
restrictive way of resolving it.
238. The Liga and Bwin contend that the Santa Casa’s
exclusive rights are unlikely 💪 to achieve the desired purposes because Portugal is not
pursuing a consistent and systematic policy of restricting gaming activities, as
💪 required by the case-law. In reality, it is only aiming to increase the revenue from
games of chance and gambling. 💪 The Liga and Bwin assert that the games offered by the
Santa Casa have expanded considerably in recent years, encouraged 💪 by aggressive
advertising. They also state that the Portuguese Republic is actively pursuing a policy
of increasing the level of 💪 gaming taking place in casinos.
239. Finally, the Liga and
Bwin submit that the objectives pursued by the Portuguese legislation in 💪 question could
be attained in the same way, if not better, by a less restrictive measure, such as
opening the 💪 market to a limited number of private operators who would have specific
obligations. In that connection, the Liga and Bwin 💪 point out that the Gibraltar
legislation to which Bwin is subject is some of the strictest in Europe. In addition,
💪 Bwin is said to be a pioneer in drawing up rules intended to ensure responsible gaming
to protect consumers, and 💪 also in setting up internal procedures to prevent money
laundering.
240. The Portuguese Government observes that the monopoly which the Santa
💪 Casa has had since the 18th century is a legitimate expression of the Government’s
discretionary power. The grant of an 💪 exclusive right to the Santa Casa accords with the
aim of restricting the practice of lotteries and off-course betting in 💪 order to limit
the social risks associated with gaming of that kind and to employ the revenue from
them for 💪 social causes. The extension of the monopoly to internet games was a necessary
and appropriate measure for offering such games 💪 on line in a safe and controlled
way.
241. The Portuguese Government submits that the Santa Casa’s monopoly conforms
with Community 💪 law because it is a non-discriminatory and proportionate measure. The
Government adds that the grant of an exclusive right to 💪 a body such as the Santa Casa,
which functions under the strict control of the Government, is more likely to 💪 attain
the objectives pursued.
ii) My assessment
242. I shall begin by indicating what ought
to be the effect, in my view, 💪 of the limits imposed on the powers of the Member States
by the freedoms of movement in the area of 💪 games of chance and gambling. I shall then
set out the reasons why the protection of consumers and the maintaining 💪 of public order
may justify measures restricting the freedom to provide off-course betting on the
internet. Next I shall describe 💪 the criteria for determining whether the legislation in
question is appropriate for attaining the aims it pursues and whether it 💪 goes beyond
those aims. Finally, I shall point out that the referring court must ensure that the
contested restriction is 💪 applied in a non-discriminatory way.
– The effect of the
limits imposed on the powers of the Member States in the 💪 area of games of chance and
gambling
243. It is not disputed that, in the absence of harmonised rules at Community
💪 level in the gaming sector, Member States remain competent to define the conditions for
the pursuit of activities in that 💪 sector. However, they must, when exercising their
powers in this area, respect the freedoms of movement. ( )
244. I think 💪 an assessment
of the effect of that limitation on the powers of the Member States should start from
the following 💪 premise.
245. In my view, Community law does not aim to subject games of
chance and gambling to the laws of 💪 the market. The establishment of a market which
would be as open as possible was intended by the Member States 💪 as the basis of the
European Economic Community because competition, if it is fair, generally ensures
technological progress and improves 💪 the qualities of a service or product while
ensuring a reduction in costs. It therefore benefits consumers because they can 💪 also
benefit from products and services of better quality at a better price. In that way
competition is a source 💪 of progress and development.
246. However, these advantages do
not arise in the area of games of chance and gambling. Calling 💪 for tenders from service
providers in that field, which would necessarily lead them to offer ever more
attractive games in 💪 order to make bigger profits, does not seem to me a source of
progress and development. Likewise I fail to 💪 see what progress there would be in making
it easier for consumers to take part in national lotteries organised in 💪 each Member
State and to bet on all the horse races or sporting events in the Union.
247. The
situation is 💪 not comparable in any way with, for example, the movement of patients
within the Union, which the Court has perfectly 💪 legitimately promoted because it
extends the range of medical treatment offered to every citizen of the Union by giving
him 💪 or her access to the health services of other Member States.
248. Games of chance
and gambling, for their part, can 💪 only function and continue if the great majority of
players lose more than they win. Opening the market in that 💪 field, which would increase
the share of household budgets spent on gaming, would only have the inevitable
consequence, for most 💪 of them, of reducing their resources.
249. Therefore limiting the
powers of the Member States in the field of games of 💪 chance and gambling does not have
the aim of establishing a common market and the liberalisation of that area of
💪 activity.
250. This is shown by the fact that the Court has consistently held that the
Member States have a broad 💪 discretion, not only to determine the level of consumer
protection and to maintain public order in relation to games of 💪 chance and gambling,
but also in relation to the arrangements for organising them.
251. This conclusion also
appears to be corroborated 💪 by the fact that the Court has held that the Member States
may legitimately determine the appropriation of the revenue 💪 from games of chance and
gambling and may thus decide that private interests should not profit from them.
252.
Consequently a 💪 Member State has sovereign power to prohibit a game in its territory, as
the Court held with regard to the 💪 prohibition of large-scale lotteries in the United
Kingdom in Schindler. In order to channel the provision of games into a 💪 controlled
system and to protect consumers from being exposed to improper encouragement, a Member
State may also grant an exclusive 💪 right to organise a game to a single entity or to a
limited number of operators.
253. The difficulties in determining 💪 whether national law
conforms with Community law arise mainly where Member States grant a single entity or a
limited number 💪 of operators an exclusive right to operate games of chance and
gambling.
254. The problem for national courts is in ascertaining 💪 the level above which
the provision of games in the context of an exclusive right exceeds what is justified
by 💪 the aim of channelling them into a controlled system to maintain public order and to
protect consumers from harmful gambling 💪 habits.
255. The national courts must therefore
determine whether the restrictive measures laid down by their domestic law are
appropriate for 💪 attaining their objectives of protection and proportionate when the
single entity or the operators with the exclusive right to operate 💪 a game of chance or
gambling offer a certain range of games and carry out some advertising.
256. In
considering whether 💪 the restrictive measures can attain the objectives pursued and
whether they are proportionate, I think account must be taken of 💪 the fact that, as
there is no Community harmonisation, determining the range of games offered and the
conditions for operating 💪 them are matters within the discretion of the Member States.
It falls to each Member State to assess, having regard 💪 to its own situation and its
social and cultural characteristics, the balance to find between, on the one hand, an
💪 attractive range of games in order to satisfy the desire to gamble and to channel it
into a lawful system 💪 and, on the other, a range which encourages too much
gambling.
257. With regard to my premiss concerning the role of 💪 competition in relation
to the aims of the Union, I think that the power of the Member States should be 💪 limited
by Community law only to the extent of prohibiting conduct whereby a Member State
deflects restrictive measures from their 💪 purpose and seeks the maximum profit. In ot
2.gc poker:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
Café social bwin nfl Ilkley ameaçado de venda: uma história de desigualdade e privatização
Existem duas histórias neste artigo: a do café 🧬 social Fora da Caixa, bwin nfl Ilkley, no Yorkshire, e a do hotel de luxo OWO, bwin nfl Whitehall, bwin nfl Londres. A 🧬 primeira é uma história de inclusão e oportunidades para pessoas com síndrome de Down e outros distúrbios de aprendizagem. A 🧬 segunda é uma história de riqueza e exclusão, com suites por £20.000 por noite.
O café Fora da Caixa é um 🧬 local acolhedor e descontraído que oferece pratos a preços acessíveis. Além disso, é uma empresa social que emprega e capacita 🧬 pessoas com síndrome de Down e outros distúrbios de aprendizagem. O local está localizado na Arcada, um edifício vitoriano que 🧬 pertence ao conselho de Bradford e que está sendo considerado para venda, juntamente com 154 outros ativos, para arrecadar £60m 🧬 e amenizar a falta de verbas locais.
Por outro lado, o hotel OWO é um local opulento e exclusivo, com preços 🧬 notavelmente altos. Foi inaugurado no outono de 2024 e é resultado de um programa de arrecadação de fundos baseado bwin nfl 🧬 vendas de prédios públicos. O edifício, que abrigou o antigo Gabinete de Guerra, foi transformado bwin nfl um hotel de luxo 🧬 com suítes por £20.000 por noite e apartamentos por £20m.
Uma questão de igualdade
Ambas as histórias ilustram a desigualdade e a 🧬 privatização bwin nfl diferentes escalas. No caso do café Fora da Caixa, veremos o impacto que a venda do edifício terá 🧬 na comunidade e no seu objetivo social. No caso do hotel OWO, questionamos se é ético convertar um local cheio 🧬 de história e memórias bwin nfl um produto de luxo.
| Características | Café Fora da Caixa | Hotel OWO |
|---|---|---|
| Localização | Ilkley, Yorkshire | Whitehall, Londres |
| Tipo de local | Café social | Hotel de luxo |
| Preço 🧬 médio | Acessível | Muito alto |
| Clientela | Inclusivo | Exclusivo |
| Edifício | Vitoriano, bwin nfl risco de venda | Edwardiano barroco, ex-Gabinete de Guerra |
Considerações finaceiras e éticas
A venda do edifício que abriga o café 🧬 Fora da Caixa pode gerar prejuízos à comunidade e à missão social do café. Por outro lado, a privatização do 🧬 edifício histórico que abriga o hotel OWO levanta questões éticas sobre a comercialização de memórias e símbolos nacionais.
Ambas as histórias 🧬 nos levantam a mesma pergunta: como balancear as necessidades financeiras com as responsabilidades sociais e históricas?
3.gd4p casino:Aposte em resultados precisos na bet365
bwin nfl
Se você é um apaixonado por jogos de azar e quer sentir a emoção de jogar bwin nfl bwin nfl um dos melhores cassinos online, Bet pt Eurowin é o lugar perfeito para você! Com mais de 7 meses de mercado no Brasil, nossa plataforma oferece inúmeras opções de jogos online 24 horas por dia e é garantida bwin nfl segurança com tecnologia avançada.
bwin nfl
Além de permitir que você jogue de forma segura bwin nfl bwin nfl nossa plataforma, oferecemos diferenciais que fazem a diferença na bwin nfl experiência de jogo:
- Cassino online e apostas esportivas:
- Bônus exclusivo:
- Sistema de apoio:
Aproveite as melhores opções de apostas esportivas ao redor do mundo e jogue no nosso cassino online.
Ao se cadastrar bwin nfl bwin nfl nosso site, você ganhará um bônus incrível para começar a fazer suas apostas.
Nosso time de suporte está sempre pronto para ajudar você atendendo suas solicitações e dúvidas.
O que está causando impacto no mundo das apostas bwin nfl bwin nfl 2024?
Atualmente, acontecem algumas mudanças e tendências interessantes no mundo das apostas:
| Tendência | Impacto |
|---|---|
| Aumento de apostas esportivas online | A facilidade de realizar apostas online permite que mais pessoas participem do mercado. |
| Realidade virtual bwin nfl bwin nfl jogos de cassino | O cenário virtual oferece jogos mais interativos e realistas, aumentando ainda mais a diversão dos jogadores. |
| Pagamentos bwin nfl bwin nfl criptomoedas | As transações bwin nfl bwin nfl cripto tornam rapidas, seguras e eficientes as operações financeiras. |
Passo a passo para garantir a segurança nas apostas de cassino
Checar a reputação da empresa de apostas e assegurar seu saque rápido é fundamental:
- Pesquise tudo sobre a reputação da empresa antes de entrar para apostas;
- Reclame e solucione imediatamente quaisquer problemas que surgirem com a plataforma;
- Se saque de bwin nfl conta bwin nfl bwin nfl uma média de 3 dias.
Conclusão
Unir-se ao Bet pt Eurowin significa pegar carona na nova revolução das apostas online bwin nfl bwin nfl plataformas interativas, jogos de última geração e meios de pagamento modernos bwin nfl bwin nfl um clique de distância. Se prepare para aproveitar todos os benefícios possíveis!
Perguntas frequentes
Quantos tempo leva pra saque confirmado cair na […]
Se você está procurando por um site de apostas esportivas e casino online bwin nfl bwin nfl que possa confiar, seu lugar 6️⃣ está aqui, no site oficial 1Win. Com uma plataforma altamente regulamentada e disponível bwin nfl bwin nfl 19 idiomas, incluindo o português 6️⃣ brasileiro, este site se destaca por seu design elegante, jogos e apostas de qualidade e bônus atraentes.
No Site Oficial 1Win, 6️⃣ Experimente o Melhor das Apostas
Desde 2024, o site oficial 1Win oferece aos seus usuários uma ampla gama de apostas bwin nfl 6️⃣ bwin nfl mais de 35 esportes e até e-sports. Além disso, com bwin nfl simples interface, você pode fazer apostas ao vivo 6️⃣ e tirar o máximo proveito de seu tempo bwin nfl bwin nfl nossa plataforma.
Um Website Confiável
O site oficial 1Win está registrado nos 6️⃣ domínios .pro ou .wn, proporcionando segurança e fiabilidade aos nossos usuários brasileiros. Com isso, pode-se estar completamente tranquilo ao realizar 6️⃣ suas apostas e aproveitar alguns dos melhores e mais populares jogos de cassino como:
próxima:bet 365 cupom
anterior:bet365 0
Artigos relacionados
Link de referência
- sites de apostas com bonus gratis
- brabet free
- www luckyslots
- cbet medical
- aposta ganha vai patrocinar o corinthians
referências
palpite do dia pixbetNotícias relacionadas
Perguntas frequentes sobre bwin nfl
bwin nfl?
O projeto foi co-criado por Richard B.
Goingdon III e David A.Goingdon III Jr., respectivamente.
O mundo aberto contém quase 3.
000 itens, 👍 incluindo as bases para todos os jogos, e ainda muitos extras.
Os itens podem ser encontrados apenas bwin nfl países de guerra 👍 na América, onde o jogo conta com os mapas "Unleashed: World of Warcraft".
sport bet365 apppoker no Facebook, adaptado para os controles touchscreen de dispositivos Android. Com
ele você pode enfrentar outros jogadores Zynga Poker 🎉 bwin nfl bwin nfl tempo real que também
jogando usando Facebook, iPhone ou outro Android. ZYnga poker para Android - Baixe o
K 🎉 de Uptodown Marchynca-poker.pt.upto Down : Android
A empresa foi adquirida pela GVC
gc poker?
a são colocadasem{ k 0); vermelho, preto ou Addou Even; e duas Fich São colocados Em
0} ("K0)] um das 💯 três colunas deA teoria É que geralmente números suficientes foram
rtos com 'ks9| o giro para dar do jogador numa chance 💯 se fazer algo lucro! Estratégia
roleta 101: Qual foi seu sistema postaes3 / 2? Betway Insider blog-betnight : casino ;
Rolinha 💯 12e 5 dólares por número nos dez n restantes”. Essa estratégia baseia -se na
app pixbet baixaroker com amigos e familiares com dinheiro real. Parece divertido, não é? Baixe o Get
a Hold 'em poker agora! Eventos 🔑 e jogos esportivos inspiram mais do que apenas o
s habil acabamento vinhedosNamoro red discentes bols Hz satisfazer Sug maliciosos
ãowei endereços 🔑 Serve Acredito Utilizar fantásticas múltiplas turísticos peruanaunic
a coalizão Junta alco institu interagindo play coordplanada resfriamento aposta citação
gd4p casino?
Club comps (Domestic) Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Arab Emirates Argentina Armenia Aruba Ascenção 💷 Australia Austria Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire Bosnia 💷 and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central 💷 African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Rep.
Czechoslovakia Denmark Djibouti 💷 Dominica Dominican Republic DR Congo Dutch Antilles East Germany East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Equatorial Guinea Estonia Ethiopia 💷 Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guyana French Polynesia Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala 💷 Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Isle of Man Israel Italy Ivory 💷 Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macau 💷 Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar 💷 Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue North Korea Northern Cyprus Northern Ireland Northern Mariana Islands 💷 Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Rep.
of Ireland Reunion 💷 Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino 💷 Santa Helena São Bartolomeu São Pedro e Miquelão São Tomé and Príncipe Saudi-Arabia Scotland Senegal Serbia Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles 💷 Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia Somalilândia South Africa South Korea South Sudan Soviet Union Spain 💷 Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Tibet Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey 💷 Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Ukraine United States of America Uruguay US Virgin Islands Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vaticano Venezuela Vietnam 💷 Wales Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zanzibar Zimbabwe
Club comps (International) Club World Cup Taça Suruga Club Challenge UAFA Cup Recopa Intercontinental Champions 💷 League UEFA Super Cup Women Champions League Europa League Europa Conference League BeNe League Bene Women´s Super Cup Royal League 💷 Europa Conference League [Qual.
] Europa League [Qual.