Abstract
Unfortunately, much of the literature on European gambling issues has shown a partisan tendency with some authors advocating that courts should grant a sectorial quasi-exemption from EU law, and others arguing for a liberalisation of national gambling markets based on the supremacy of EU law. This chapter moves past this controversy and argues that national gambling laws are subject to a number of national, international and European constraints.
First, the chapter points at the relevance of the national constitutional order. National gambling regulations must regularly respect the constitutional principle of proportionality. In addition, constitutions protect fundamental rights such as the right to choose an occupation and to pursue an economic activity.
Second, the chapter shows that national gambling regulations can be affected by obligations under public international law. International trade agreements like the GATS can impact national gambling regulations, and gambling laws in Europehave to respect the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Finally, the chapter addresses the interplay of EU law and national gambling regulation. Gambling services regard the EU’s Internal Market provisions where shared competences apply. EU Member States can regulate gambling to the extent that the Union has not exercised its legislative competence. However, due to the supremacy of EU law, the national gambling laws must be in line with the Treaty obligations, in particular the EU’s fundamental freedoms. If a conflict arises, the Member State concerned must show that its conflicting laws serve a legitimate public interest objective and respect the principle of proportionality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Haltern, U., Gemeinschaftsrechtliche Aspekte des Glückspiels, Schriften zum europäischen Recht, vol. 129, Magiera, S., Merten, D., Niedobitek, M., et al. (Eds.), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007, at 9.
- 2.
Concurring: Fink, M., and Rübenstahl, M. (2007). “Placanica & Co. – ”Rien ne va plus“ – Das Ende der Anwendbarkeit von § 284 StGB und der Abschied vom Sportwettenmonopol?”, European Law Reporter, 7–8, 275–290, at 275.
- 3.
Larouche, P., “Introduction – A View From the Outside” in The Regulation of Gambling: European and National Perspectives, Littler, A., and Fijnaut, C. (Eds.), Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007, pp. 1–7, at 1. For a discussion of parallels between the energy and gambling sectors, cf. Kramer, T. (2007). “Gambling and Energy in the Internal Market”, ERA Forum, 8(3), 1–8.
- 4.
For a contribution that seems to suggest an antagonistic constellation in WTO law, cf. Ruse-Kahn, H.G., “‘Gambling’ with Sovereignty: Complying with International Obligations or Upholding National Autonomy” in Economic Law and National Autonomy, Kolsky Lewis, M., and Frankel, S. (Eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 141–166.
- 5.
C-275/92 Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-1039, para. 35.
- 6.
Art. 4(2)(a) TFEU.
- 7.
For the aspect of conflicting laws, cf. Hörnle, J., and Zammit, B., Cross-Border Online Gambling Law and Policy, Cheltenham UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2010.
- 8.
For an overview of national gambling regulations, cf. GamblingCompliance, Market Barriers: A European Online Gambling Study 2012, 2012; Gambling Compliance, Market Barriers: A European Online Gambling Study, Gambling Compliance 2009; Planzer, S. (Ed.), Regulating Gambling in Europe – National Approaches to Gambling Regulation and Prevalence Rates of Pathological Gambling 1997–2010, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045073, 2011; Littler, A., and Fijnaut, C., The Regulation of Gambling: European and National Perspectives, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
- 9.
Cf. e.g. Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999, ‘Swiss Federal Constitution’, SR 101, Art. 5(2): “State activities must be conducted in the public interest and be proportionate to the ends sought.”
- 10.
For example Art. 36 ibid.:
“1 Restrictions on fundamental rights must have a legal basis. Significant restrictions must have their basis in a federal act. The foregoing does not apply in cases of serious and immediate danger where no other course of action is possible.
2 Restrictions on fundamental rights must be justified in the public interest or for the protection of the fundamental rights of others.
3 Any restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate.
4 The essence of fundamental rights is sacrosanct.”
- 11.
For example Art. 27 ibid.:
“1 Economic freedom is guaranteed.
2 Economic freedom includes in particular the freedom to choose an occupation as well as the freedom to pursue a private economic activity.”
- 12.
Art. 5 ibid.: “1 All activities of the state shall be based on and limited by law.”
- 13.
BVerfG, 1 BvR 1054/01, Verfassungsmässigkeit des deutschen Sportwetten-Monopols, Judgment of 28 March 2006.
- 14.
Ennuschat, J., “Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Rechtsprechung von EuGH und BVerfG” in Gesellschafts – und Glücksspiel: Staatliche Regulierung und Suchtprävention – Beiträge zum Symposium 2005 der Forschungsstelle Glücksspiel, Becker, T., and Baumann, C. (Eds.), Schriftenreihe zur Glücksspielforschung, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2006, pp. 69–74, at 74. Moreover, national law may allocate the power to regulate gambling at the national (federal), regional (state) or local (municipal) level. In Germany and Spain for instance, the regional authorities have far-reaching competences in relation to gambling (‘Länder’, ‘comunidades autónomas’); cf. for Germany: Hofmann, J., and Spitz, M., “Germany” in Gaming Law: Jurisdictional Comparisons, Harris, J. (Ed.), London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters), 2012, pp. 107–119; cf. for Spain: Asensi, S., and Serebrianskaia, A., “Spain” in Gaming Law: Jurisdictional Comparisons, Harris, J. (Ed.), London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters), 2012, pp. 303–314. In the UK, city councils can license casino operations: Littler, A. (2007). “The Regulation of Gambling at European Level: The Balance to be Found”, ERA Forum, 8(3), 357–371, at 359; cf. also Harris, J., and Hagan, J., “United Kingdom” in Gaming Law: Jurisdictional Comparisons, Harris, J. (Ed.), London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters), 2012, pp. 331–346. Similarly, games of chance in Switzerland fall mostly under the competences of the federal authorities whereas lotteries, sports betting and games of skill fall under the competences of cantonal authorities; cf. the recently amended Art. 106 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999; for a contribution, cf. Pérrard, L., Monopole des loteries et paris en Suisse: État des lieux et perspectives – Remise en question du monopole détenu par les operateurs de loteries et paris, Cahier de l’IDHEAP, vol. 236/2008, Chavannes-Lausanne: Institut de hautes études en administration publique, 2008.
- 15.
For example Art. 5(4) Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999: “The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law.”
- 16.
For a comparison of gambling services under EU and WTO rules, cf. Geeroms, S.M.F., “Cross-Border Gambling on the Internet under the WTO/GATS and EC Rules Compared: A Justified Restriction on the Freedom to Provide Services?” in Cross-Border Gambling on the Internet – Challenging National and International Law, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (Ed.), Zurich/ Basel/Geneva: Schulthess, 2004, pp. 143–180 as well as Diaconu, M., International Trade in Gambling Services, Global Trade Law Series, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010.
- 17.
AB-2005-1 United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services WT/DS285/AB/R. For a brief introduction to the implications of WTO law for national gambling regulation, the proceedings against the US and the regulatory regime of Antigua, cf. Hörnle, and Zammit, Cross-Border Online Gambling Law and Policy, at 69 et seq. and 175 et seq. For the broader context of the battle between the US and online gambling jurisdictions, cf. Cooper, A.F., Internet Gambling Offshore: Caribbean Struggles Over Casino Capitalism, Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
- 18.
Art. 4(2)(a) TFEU.
- 19.
C-275/92 Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-1039, paras 19 and 30.
- 20.
Art. 4(3) TEU.
- 21.
For the impact of EU law on national gambling regulation in France and Germany, cf. Heseler, F., Der Einfluss des Europarechts auf die mitgliedstaatliche Glücksspielregulierung : Frankreich und Deutschland im Vergleich, Schriften des Europa-Instituts der Universität des Saarlandes. Rechtswissenschaft, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013.
Bibliography
Haltern, U. (2007). Gemeinschaftsrechtliche Aspekte des Glückspiels (Schriften zum europäischen Recht, Vol. 129). Magiera, S., Merten, D., Niedobitek, M., et al. (Eds.)., Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Fink, M., & Rübenstahl, M. (2007). Placanica & Co. – “Rien ne va plus” – Das Ende der Anwendbarkeit von § 284 StGB und der Abschied vom Sportwettenmonopol? European Law Reporter, (7–8), pp. 275–290.
Larouche, P. (2007). Introduction – A view from the outside. In A. Littler & C. Fijnaut (Eds.), The regulation of gambling: European and national perspectives (pp. 1–7). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Kramer, T. (2007). Gambling and energy in the internal market. ERA Forum, 8(3), 1–8.
Ruse-Kahn, H. G. (2010). ‘Gambling’ with sovereignty: Complying with international obligations or upholding national autonomy. In M. Kolsky Lewis & S. Frankel (Eds.), Economic law and national autonomy (pp. 141–166). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hörnle, J., & Zammit, B. (2010). Cross-border online gambling law and policy. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Littler, A., & Fijnaut, C. (2007). The regulation of gambling: European and national perspectives. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Ennuschat, J. (2006). Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Rechtsprechung von EuGH und BVerfG. In T. Becker & C. Baumann (Eds.), Gesellschafts- und Glücksspiel: Staatliche Regulierung und Suchtprävention – Beiträge zum Symposium 2005 der Forschungsstelle Glücksspiel (pp. 69–74). Schriftenreihe zur Glücksspielforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Hofmann, J., & Spitz, M. (2012). Germany. In J. Harris (Ed.), Gaming law: Jurisdictional comparisons (pp. 107–119). London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters).
Asensi, S., & Serebrianskaia, A. (2012). Spain. In J. Harris (Ed.), Gaming law: Jurisdictional comparisons (pp. 303–314). London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters).
Littler, A. (2007). The regulation of gambling at European level: The balance to be found. ERA Forum, 8(3), 357–371.
Harris, J., & Hagan, J. (2012). United Kingdom. In J. Harris (Ed.), Gaming law: Jurisdictional comparisons (pp. 331–346). London: European Lawyer Reference Series (Thomson Reuters).
Pérrard, L. (2008). Monopole des loteries et paris en Suisse: État des lieux et perspectives – Remise en question du monopole détenu par les operateurs de loteries et paris (Cahier de l’IDHEAP, Vol. 236). Chavannes-Lausanne: Institut de hautes études en administration publique.
Geeroms, S. M. F. (2004). Cross-border gambling on the internet under the WTO/GATS and EC rules compared: A justified restriction on the freedom to provide services? In Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (Ed.), Cross-border gambling on the internet – Challenging national and international law (pp. 143–180). Zurich/Basel/Geneva: Schulthess.
Cooper, A. F. (2011). Internet gambling offshore: Caribbean struggles over casino capitalism. Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heseler, F. (2013). Der Einfluss des Europarechts auf die mitgliedstaatliche Glücksspielregulierung: Frankreich und Deutschland im Vergleich, (Schriften des Europa-Instituts der Universität des Saarlandes - Rechtswissenschaft, Vol. 90). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Planzer, S. (2014). National Gambling Regulation: National, International and European Constraints. In: Empirical Views on European Gambling Law and Addiction. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02306-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02306-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02305-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02306-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)