Page 82 - Public Gaming International September/October 2017

he fight against illegal operators and Belgium
remains a top priority throughout the developed in
world. Illegal gambling is defined in the Placanica
Tgeneral as gambling services offered case at the
to consumers in a jurisdiction where the E u r o p e a n
operator does not have a license to operate. Court the
A license to provide gambling services in one theory of
jurisdiction does not constitute license to “controlled
provide those services in other jurisdictions, expansion” of
even within the EU. According to EU laws, the activities of the local operator. A policy
operators need to be specifically licensed in of controlled expansion in the betting and
the jurisdiction where the consumer resides, gaming sector may be entirely consistent
in each and every jursidction where they with the objective of drawing players away
operate. from clandestine betting and gaming to
activities which are authorised and regu-
lated. Authorised operators must therefore
represent a reliable, but at the same time
A LICENSE TO PROVIDE attractive, alternative to a prohibited activ-
GAMBLING SERVICES IN ONE ity. Advertising on a certain scale and the
use of new distribution techniques can fall
JURISDICTION DOES NOT within the purview of a controlled expansion

CONSTITUTE LICENSE TO policy. This argument must of course apply
to both private licensed operators as well as
PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES state controlled lottery operators.
IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, In Ladbrokes, the EFTA Court added that
this theory of controlled expansion could also
EVEN WITHIN THE EU. be applied when the objective of the state, in
ACCORDING TO EU LAWS, this case Norway, was to protect consumers.
Also the Court of Justice of the European
OPERATORS NEED TO BE Union later confirmed the possibility of
SPECIFICALLY LICENSED IN controlled expansion in gambling with a
view to protecting consumers (and not just
THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE fighting crime and fraud related to illegal

CONSUMER RESIDES, IN EACH gambling).
The EFTA Court stated that the host State
AND EVERY JURSIDCTION has the right to protect a lawful monopoly
WHERE THEY OPERATE. by prohibiting the provision and marketing
of games of chance from abroad, no matter
whether or not these are lawful in their State
To ensure effective regulation of gambling of origin.
services, the Council of Ministers of the EU On 8 September 2010, the European Court
agreed in 2010 that the Member States need issued its judgments in the Markus Stoss and
to be given the responsibility to supervise the Carmen Media cases. The European Court
By PHILIPPE provision of gambling services in their terri- was of the opinion that a measure as restric-
tories through regulatory public authorities, tive as a monopoly must be accompanied by
VLAEMMINCK, established according to national legislation. a legislative framework suitable for ensuring
The fight against illegal operators has many that the monopolistic operator will pursue
And BEATA GUZIK, aspects. the determined objective in a consistent and
PhArumlegAl Of course there is the need for strict law systematic manner. The Court here again
Brussels enforcement through geoblocking measures addressed advertising and repeated its previ-
and criminal sanctions. But there is clearly ous case-law, according to which advertising
PhArumlegAl.eu another aspect of equal importance - to must remain measured and strictly limited
provide consumers a secure and safe alter- to what is necessary to channel consumers
native, and thus to properly channel the towards authorized channels. “As for the
gambling desire of the consumers. fact that advertising campaigns conducted
In order to improve the fight against ille- by the holder of the monopoly with regard
gal gambling the governments of France to lottery products thus lay emphasis on the
Continued on page 81
82 // PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL // SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2017