Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Further Relevant Provisions for EU Gambling Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Empirical Views on European Gambling Law and Addiction

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 1))

  • 801 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines to which extent other provisions, apart from the law on fundamental freedoms, could be applicable to gambling issues. In relation to primary law, this regards in the first place the competition and state aid provisions. Certain constellations of gambling monopolies remind of ‘revenue-producing monopolies’ in the sense of Article 106(2) TFEU, and favourable tax regimes towards domestic gambling operators can trigger the application of the state aid rules. The relevance of EU fundamental rights is examined in a separate chapter.

The EU’s classic approach to reducing barriers to trade consists in the harmonisation of national laws through directives. To date, however, the EU legislator has not passed a directive that aims to facilitate cross-border gambling services. The chapter nevertheless discusses a number of directives, which either apply to gambling issues or (partly) exclude gambling services from their scope of application.

Inter alia, the chapter deals with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. It defines commercial standards that can be of relevance in relation to responsible gambling advertising, in particular when aimed towards adolescents who are one of the population groups that are particularly vulnerable to disordered gambling.

Gambling services were excluded from the scope of the Services Directive. The chapter notes that this may have produced undesirable results both for Member States and consumers. It is not without irony that the European Commission with its Green Paper process has pursued a similar road as initially foreseen for gambling services in the draft services directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the primary law of the Union and its communities was codified in four consolidated treaties: the Treaty on European Union (EUT), the Treaty establishing the European Community (ECT), the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (TECSC), which expired already on 23 July 2002, and the Treaty establishing the European Energy Community (Euratom).

  2. 2.

    Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 083, 30.03.2010. The TFEU is the amended version of the Treaty establishing the European Community (ECT).

  3. 3.

    Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, OJ C 83, 30.03.2010. The TEU is the amended version of the old Treaty on European Union (EUT).

  4. 4.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 364, 18.12.2000. By contrast, Euratom, one of the three initial communities of European integration, was not integrated in the new treaty structure of the EU and continues to form a community through a separate treaty: the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

  5. 5.

    Art. 1(2) TFEU and Art. 1 i.f. TEU.

  6. 6.

    Arts 1 i.f. and 6(1) i.i. TEU.

  7. 7.

    Ennuschat, J., “Zur gemeinschafts – und verfassungrechtlichen Zulässigkeit eines staatlichen Monopolangebotes für Online-Glücksspiele” in Aktuelle Probleme des Rechts der Glücksspiele – Vier Rechtsgutachten, Ennuschat, J. (Ed.), Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen, 2008, at 58.

  8. 8.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mazák in C-176/11 HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem dd Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na srečo in turizem dd v Bundesminister für Finanzen [2012] nyr, at fn 9.

  9. 9.

    Ennuschat, “Zur gemeinschafts– und verfassungrechtlichen Zulässigkeit eines staatlichen Monopolangebotes für Online-Glücksspiele”, at 58.

  10. 10.

    Stein, T., “Zum < Glück > haben wir den EuGH” in Festschrift für Günter Hirsch, Müller, G., Osterloh, E., and Stein, T. (Eds.), Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2008, pp. 185–197, at 197.

  11. 11.

    Cf. also the opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in C-275/92 Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-1039, at fn 45.

  12. 12.

    Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128 final, SEC(2011) 321 final, OJ L 337, 18.12.2009.

  13. 13.

    In his opinion in the case Läärä, Advocate General La Pergola briefly discussed the provisions regarding competition, but his conclusions were nevertheless largely argued with the provisions relating to the fundamental freedoms: opinion of Advocate General La Pergola in C-124/97 Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State) [1999] ECR I-6067, paras 16 and 24 as well as fns 27, 43 and 58. Cf. also opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in C-67/98 Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289.

  14. 14.

    Ex multis, cf. Baudenbacher, C., and Bremer, F. (2010). “European State Aid and Merger Control in the Financial Crisis – From Negative to Positive Integration”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 1(4), 267–285.

  15. 15.

    Koenig, C. (2007a).“Verspielen die Mitgliedstaaten ihr gemeinschaftsrechtliches Monopolglück?”, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 18(2), 33–34.

  16. 16.

    The German competition authority (‘Bundeskartellamt’) for instance saw in the national lottery practice a violation of Art. 101 TFEU: cf. BKartA, B 10 – 92713 – Kc – 148/05, judgment of 23 August 2006.

  17. 17.

    Advocate General Fennelly in his opinion in C-67/98 Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289, at fn 31; Advocate General La Pergola in his opinion in C-124/97 Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State) [1999] ECR I-6067, at para. 30.

  18. 18.

    State Aid No C 34/10 Taxe affectée au financement de la mission de service public d’amélioration de l’espèce équine et de promotion de l’élevage, déformation dans le secteur des courses et de l’élevage chevalin ainsi que de développement rural, C(2010)7672 final, OJ C 10/4.

  19. 19.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 regarding French parafiscal levy on online horse-race betting to finance horse-racing companies, case no SA.30753.

  20. 20.

    Concurring: Stein, T. (1993). “Glücksspiel im europäischen Binnenmarkt: Kein “Markt” wie jeder andere”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 39(10), 838–845, at 845.

  21. 21.

    Art. 106(2) TFEU, cf. further Art. 14 TFEU.

  22. 22.

    For an example of a selective tax reduction (state aid), cf. C-88/03 Portugal v Commission (‘Azores islands’) [2006] ECR I-7115. For an introduction to the topic, cf. Baudenbacher, C., A Brief Guide to European State Aid Law, European Business Law and Practice Series, vol. 13, The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1997.

  23. 23.

    C-6/01 Associação Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas (Anomar) et alii v Estado português [2003] ECR I-8621, paras 57–61; cf. also the opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in this case at paras 54–61 who had reached different conclusions on this point.

  24. 24.

    Art. 37(1) i.f. TFEU.

  25. 25.

    Commission Staff Working Paper: Accompanying Document to the Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128, SEC(2011) 321, at 17.

  26. 26.

    State Aid No C 35/2010 Duties for Online Gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act, OJ C 22, 22.01.2011 and IP/19/1711, cited in Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128 final, SEC(2011) 321 final, OJ L 337, 18.12.2009, at 12. For a comment, cf. GamblingCompliance, “EU Opens State Aid Case Against Denmark”, 16 December 2010.

  27. 27.

    State Aid No C 34/10 Taxe affectée au financement de la mission de service public d’amélioration de l’espèce équine et de promotion de l’élevage, déformation dans le secteur des courses et de l’élevage chevalin ainsi que de développement rural, cited in Commission Staff Working Paper: Accompanying Document to the Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128, SEC(2011) 321, at 17; for a comment, cf. GamblingCompliance, “European Scrutiny Weighs On French and British Racing”, 21 January 2011. Cf. for the Commission’s approval: Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 regarding French parafiscal levy on online horse-race betting to finance horse-racing companies, case no SA.30753.

  28. 28.

    The French Competition Authority for its part issued a non-binding opinion regarding the horserace and lottery monopolies of Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) and Francaise des Jeux (FdJ), calling for clearer guidelines with regard to the separation of online and land-based operations: Opinion no 11-A-02 of 20 January 2011 Regarding the Sector of Online Games of Chance, available at http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/pdf/avis/11a02.pdf. For a comment, cf. Gambling Compliance, “Starting With France, EU Competition Watchdogs Turn To Gambling”, 24 January 2011.

  29. 29.

    C-212/08 Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre [2011] ECR I-5633. For comments, cf. Gambling Compliance, “French Monopolies Facing European Scrutiny”, 9 December 2010, and Gambling Compliance, “Starting With France, EU Competition Watchdogs Turn To Gambling”.

  30. 30.

    Exceptions included C-42/02 Diana Elisabeth Lindman [2003] ECR I-13519, and C-347/09 Criminal Proceedings against Jochen Dickinger and Franz Ömer [2011] ECR I-8185.

  31. 31.

    C-55/94 Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165, para. 37.

  32. 32.

    Hailbronner, K., and Jochum, G., Europarecht II: Binnenmarkt und Grundfreiheiten, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 2006, cited in Ennuschat, “Zur gemeinschafts – und verfassungrechtlichen Zulässigkeit eines staatlichen Monopolangebotes für Online-Glücksspiele”, at 59. For an example of a broad use of Art. 18 TFEU, cf. C-524/06 Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2008] ECR I-9705.

  33. 33.

    Art. 2 TEU.

  34. 34.

    The codified law and the case law sometimes refer to ‘human rights’ while on other occasions referring to ‘fundamental rights’. For reasons of consistency, those rights protected under EU law are exclusively referred to as fundamental rights in this book, which at the same time allows to clearly distinguish these rights from human rights as guaranteed under the ECHR and other international human rights instruments.

  35. 35.

    Art. 6(1) i.i. TEU.

  36. 36.

    Art. 288 TFEU.

  37. 37.

    Arts 114 and 288 TFEU.

  38. 38.

    Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 Amending Directive 98/34/EC Laying Down A Procedure for the Provision of Information in the Field of Technical Standards and Regulations (‘Information Society Directive’), OJ L 217, 05.08.1998.

  39. 39.

    Recitals 1, 16 and 26 of the Directive.

  40. 40.

    Littler, A., Member States versus the European Union – The Regulation of Gambling, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011, at 286.

  41. 41.

    Art. 1(2)(a) of the Directive. This term covers also other means of communication, not just the Internet. Cf. also Sect. 4.1 of the UK Gambling Act, which refers to ‘remote gambling’, a term covering the use of any remote form of communication, UK Gambling Act, 2005, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents/enacted. Cf. further Littler, Member States versus the European Union – The Regulation of Gambling, at 285.

  42. 42.

    Art. 1(2)(a) of the Directive: ““service”, any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.” Cf. also the CJEU’s interpretation of ‘gambling services’ since its first ruling in Schindler: C-275/92 Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-1039, paras 26–29. Cf. also Art. 57 TFEU.

  43. 43.

    However, the application of the Information Society Directive was only of relevance for the question whether the fines imposed on the defendants Bwin and Liga Portuguesa were admissible under EU law. Opinion of Advocate General Bot in C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa [2009] ECR I-7633, paras 160–192.

  44. 44.

    C-213/11, C-214/11 and C-217/11 (Joined Cases) Fortuna sp. z o.o. (C-213/11), Grand sp. z o.o. (C-214/11), Forta sp. z o.o. (C-217/11) v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni [2012] nyr. More precisely, the CJEU dealt in this case with the notion ‘technical regulation’ according to Art. 1(11) of the Directive. Cf. further C-65/05 Commission v Greece [2006] ECR I-10341, para. 61.

  45. 45.

    Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in Respect of Distance Contracts (‘Distance Selling Directive’), OJ L 144, 04.06.1997.

  46. 46.

    Art. 1 of the Directive.

  47. 47.

    Arts 2(1) and 2(4).

  48. 48.

    Art. 6(3) of the Directive, indent 6.

  49. 49.

    The Directive is currently under review due to a proposal for a Consumer Rights Directive: cf. “Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm#dir.

  50. 50.

    Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (‘Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive’), OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, 15–36.

  51. 51.

    Art. 44 of the Directive referring to Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 Amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, and Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering, OJ L 166, 28.06.1991.

  52. 52.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, COM/2013/045 final, 2013/0025 (COD). Regarding the gambling sector, the proposal suggests to widen the scope of application to include “providers of gambling services.” Under the Third Directive, only casinos fall within the scope of application.

  53. 53.

    Art. 2(1)(3)(f) of the Directive.

  54. 54.

    Art. 10(1) of the Directive.

  55. 55.

    Arts 10 and 36, combined with recital 14 of the Directive.

  56. 56.

    Art. 4(1) of the Directive.

  57. 57.

    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (‘Data Protection Directive’), OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

  58. 58.

    Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on Universal Service and Users’ Rights Relating to Electronic Communications Networks and Services; Directive 2002/58/EC Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector; and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Cooperation between National Authorities Responsible for the Enforcement of Consumer Protection Laws, OJ L 337, 18.12.2009.

  59. 59.

    Commission Staff Working Paper: Accompanying Document to the Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128, SEC(2011) 321, at 14.

  60. 60.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 Concerning Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices in the Internal Market and Amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.06.2005.

  61. 61.

    Art. 1 of the Directive.

  62. 62.

    Preamble, recital 9 of the Directive.

  63. 63.

    Commission Staff Working Paper: Accompanying Document to the Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128, SEC(2011) 321, at 13. Furthermore, the Directive may be relevant regarding prize competitions, lotteries or bonuses where the participation is made conditional upon the purchase of goods or services: C-540/08 Media print Zeitungs– und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG v ‘Österreich’-Zeitungsverlag GmbH [2010] ECR I-10909; C-304/08 Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [2010] ECR I-217.

  64. 64.

    Arts 5–9 of the Directive.

  65. 65.

    Art. 5(3) of the Directive.

  66. 66.

    Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the Common System of Value Added Tax (‘VAT-Directive’), OJ L 347, 11.12.2006.

  67. 67.

    Art. 135(1)(i) of the Directive; cf. however for operators providing online gambling from outside the Internal Market: Vlaemminck, P., and Hubert, A., Is There Room for a Comprehensive EU Gambling Services Policy? (paper presented at Gambling Conference, Prague, June 2009), at 8.

  68. 68.

    Commission Staff Working Paper: Accompanying Document to the Green Paper on On-line Gambling in the Internal Market, COM(2011) 128, SEC(2011) 321, at 15. Regarding VAT exemptions, cf. de la Feria, R. (Ed.), VAT Exemptions: Consequences and Design Alternatives, Eucotax Series on European Taxation, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2013, at ‘Part III: Exemptions for gambling’.

  69. 69.

    Cf. e.g. C-377/11 International Bingo Technology SA v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC) [2012] nyr; C-38/93 H. J. Glawe Spiel– und Unterhaltungsgeräte Aufstellungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst [1994] ECR I-1679; C-498/99 Town & County Factors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2002] ECR I-7173; C-259/10 and C-260/10 (Joined cases) Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group plc. [2011] nyr; C-58/09 Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide [2010] ECR I-5189; C-464/10 État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe [2011] ECR I-6219; C-283/95 Karlheinz Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen [1998] ECR I-3369; C-453/02 and C-462/02 (Joined cases) Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber (C-453/02) and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (C-462/02) [2005] ECR I-1131; C-231/07 and C-232/07 (Joined cases) Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State [2008] ECR I-73 (Order of the Court).

  70. 70.

    Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 March 2010 on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Provision of Audiovisual Media Services (‘Audiovisual Media Services Directive’), OJ L 95, 15.04.2010.

  71. 71.

    Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

  72. 72.

    Preamble, recital 22 of the Directive.

  73. 73.

    C-162/97 Criminal Proceedings against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren and Solweig Arrborn [1998] ECR I-7477, para. 54. For a discussion of that point, cf. Littler, Member States versus the European Union - The Regulation of Gambling, at 297–298.

  74. 74.

    C-195/06 Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria) v Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) [2007] ECR I-8817, paras 30–38.

  75. 75.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular in Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on Electronic Commerce’ or ‘e-commerce Directive’), OJ L 178, 17.07.2000.

  76. 76.

    Art. 1(1)-(2) of the Directive.

  77. 77.

    Cf. the wording of Art. 1(5)(d) 3rd indent of the Directive as well as recital 16 of the Preamble.

  78. 78.

    Preamble, recital 16 of the Directive. Competitions as well as games relate to promotions. Cf. the French text: « Elle ne couvre pas les concours ou jeux promotionnels qui ont pour but d’encourager la vente de biens ou de services » (Preamble, Recital 16 of the Directive). Whether or not the exclusion requires a skill component (cf. for this point Littler, Member States versus the European Union – The Regulation of Gambling, at 287) does not seem to be decisive.

  79. 79.

    C-368/95 Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689, para. 23: “The draws in question are organized on a small scale and less is at stake; they do not constitute an economic activity in their own right but are merely one aspect of the editorial content of a magazine.”

  80. 80.

    Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on Services in the Internal Market (‘Services Directive’), OJ L 376, 27.12.2006. For a contribution regarding the legal situation prior to the Services Directive, cf. Services and Free Movement in EU Law, Andenas, M., and Roth, W.-H. (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

  81. 81.

    Preamble, recital 25 of the Directive. Cf. also Art. 2(2)(h) of the Directive. This book demonstrates that the argument of a special or peculiar nature of gambling is central to considerations of the EU legislative and judicial branches and assesses in relation to gambling addiction whether empirical evidence supports such view (see Sect. 9.1).

  82. 82.

    The Swiss Institute of Comparative Law was mandated by the European Commission to compose this report: Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, Study of Gambling Services in the Internal Market of the European Union.

  83. 83.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Services in the Internal Market, COM(2004) 2, 13.01.2004, Art. 40(1).

  84. 84.

    Concurring: Littler, Member States versus the European Union – The Regulation of Gambling, at 292.

  85. 85.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Services in the Internal Market, COM(2004) 2, 13.01.2004, Art. 40(1)(b). Note that the quoted wording is from the original proposal for a Services Directive (sic!) while perfectly describing the process of the actual Green Paper.

  86. 86.

    Art. 1(2)-(3) of the Directive: “[…] This Directive does not deal with the abolition of monopolies providing services […].”

  87. 87.

    Littler, Member States versus the European Union – The Regulation of Gambling, at 293.

Bibliography

  • Ennuschat, J. (2008). Zur gemeinschafts- und verfassungrechtlichen Zulässigkeit eines staatlichen Monopolangebotes für Online-Glücksspiele. In J. Ennuschat (Ed.), Aktuelle Probleme des Rechts der Glücksspiele – Vier Rechtsgutachten. Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher, C., & Bremer, F. (2010). European state aid and merger control in the financial crisis – From negative to positive integration. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 1(4), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, C. (2007a). Verspielen die Mitgliedstaaten ihr gemeinschaftsrechtliches Monopolglück? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 18(2), 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, T. (1993). Glücksspiel im europäischen Binnenmarkt: Kein “Markt” wie jeder andere. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 39(10), 838–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher, C. (1997). A brief guide to European state aid law (European Business Law and Practice Series, Vol. 13). The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner, K., & Jochum, G. (2006). Europarecht II: Binnenmarkt und Grundfreiheiten. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littler, A. (2011). Member states versus the European Union – The regulation of gambling. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaemminck, P. & Hubert, A. (2009, June 15–16). Is there room for a comprehensive EU gambling services policy? Paper presented at ERA gambling conference, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lecturer in Law, University of St.Gallen HSG, St.Gallen, Switzerland

    Simon Planzer

Authors
  1. Simon Planzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Planzer, S. (2014). Further Relevant Provisions for EU Gambling Law. 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_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation