Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State Aid and Gambling Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Competition and State Aid Rules

Part of the book series: Europeanization and Globalization ((EAG,volume 3))

Abstract

The combination of public goals and fiscal interests collides with the need to harmonise and liberalise the gambling market. Although the trend of market liberalisation is omnipresent, liberalisation is not an imperative. Member States are, in principle, free to regulate these issues, provided that they comply with the principles of EU law, especially competition and State aid rules. The focus of this paper is on the possible application of State aid rules in the field of gambling. Though the debate on State aid in the area of gambling has gained momentum, it has not been followed by a proliferation of corresponding case law. So far, the Commission has adopted only a few decisions, some of which have been challenged before the General Court. These will be analysed in this article. Special attention is given to the controversal OPAP decision, which has been subject to a lot of discussion.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more on this issue, see: Nicolaides (2013), p. 282.

  2. 2.

    Judgment in Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), C-124/97, EU:C:1999:435.

  3. 3.

    Arendts (2007), p. 42.

  4. 4.

    See AG La Pergola, Opinion delivered on 4 March 1999 in judgment Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), EU:C:1999:435, para 16.

  5. 5.

    See AG La Pergola, Opinion in judgment Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State), EU:C:1999:435, para 24.

  6. 6.

    Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 47–390.

  7. 7.

    Hancher and Sauter (2012), pp. 281 and 282.

  8. 8.

    Hancher and Sauter (2012), p. 283.

  9. 9.

    Hancher and Sauter (2012), p. 262.

  10. 10.

    In the contested Commission Decision, it was determined that a selective lowering of taxes could be justified by exceptions to prohibited State aid. However, this did not apply to the system of selective lowering of taxes in the financial sector. The Court confirmed the Commission’s Decision in judgment in Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities, C-88/03, EU:C:2006:511.

  11. 11.

    Bacon (2013), p. 13.

  12. 12.

    Article 107(2) TFEU enumerates examples of aid which are always deemed compatible with the internal market. These include: (a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned; (b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

  13. 13.

    See State aid action plan: Less and better targeted state aid: a roadmap for state aid reform 2005–2009 (Consultation document) {SEC (2005) 795}, COM/2005/0107 final.

  14. 14.

    Bacon (2013), p. 110.

  15. 15.

    Bacon (2013), p. 108; Liszt and Petrović (2011), p. 40.

  16. 16.

    Bacon (2013), p. 109.

  17. 17.

    Bacon (2013), p. 47.

  18. 18.

    Communication from the Commission, Towards a comprehensive European framework on online gambling, /2012/0596 final/.

  19. 19.

    Decision of the EU Commission to initiate formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU about Denmark Duties for Online Gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act, OJ C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010).

  20. 20.

    Commission Decision 2012/140/EU of 20 September 2011 on measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10), OJ 2012, L 68, p 3.

  21. 21.

    Judgment of 26 September 2014, Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, T-601/11, EU:T:2014:839. The applicants’ claim was dismissed on account of a lack of legal interest, because State aid was justified in accordance with Article 107(3) TFEU, and was declared compatible with the internal market. Case Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission, C-563/14P. An appellate procedure is pending before the Court. On the same day, the General Court rendered an identical judgment of 26 September 2014, Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, T-615/11, EU:T:2014:838, not yet published, which is also pending before the Court, judgment in Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus v Commission, C-541/14P.

  22. 22.

    Commission Decision 2012/140/EU of 20 September 2011 on measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10), OJ 2012, L 68, paras 72–101.

  23. 23.

    Commission Decision 2012/140/EU, para 145.

  24. 24.

    Commission Decision 2012/140/EU, paras 106–123. On State aid and taxes in general, see: Micheau (2011), pp. 193–218.

  25. 25.

    Commission Decision 2012/140/EU, paras 124–137.

  26. 26.

    Lignè (2011).

  27. 27.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse racing companies (C(2013) 3554) (2014/19/EU).

  28. 28.

    See also Brassi and del Frederico (2005).

  29. 29.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid, paras 115–129.

  30. 30.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid, paras 130–149.

  31. 31.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid, paras 150–152.

  32. 32.

    Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid, paras 153–157.

  33. 33.

    State aid SA.33988 (2011/N) – Greece, Arrangements for the extension of OPAP’s exclusive right to operate 13 games of chance and the granting of an exclusive licence to operate Video Lottery Terminals, Brussels, 03.10.2012, C(2012) 6777.

  34. 34.

    Judgment in Stanleybet International Ltd and Others and Sportingbet plc v Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon and Ypourgos Politismou, C-209/11, not yet published in Reports.

  35. 35.

    Nicolaides (2013), p. 272.

  36. 36.

    Judgment in Stanleybet International Ltd and Others and Sportingbet plc v Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon and Ypourgos Politismou , para 21.

  37. 37.

    Nicolaides (2013), p. 273.

  38. 38.

    On the possible combined application of the rules on fundamental economic freedoms and State aid rules, see Staes (2015), pp. 106–121.

  39. 39.

    Judgment of 8 January 2015, Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v European Commission, T-58/13, EU:T:2015:1, not yet published in Reports.

  40. 40.

    Judgment in Club Hotel Loutraki, para 39 above, EU:T:2015:1, paras 17 and 18.

  41. 41.

    Judgment in Club Hotel Loutraki, para 39 above, EU:T:2015:1, paras 79–81.

  42. 42.

    Judgment in Club Hotel Loutraki, para 39 above, EU:T:2015:1, paras 94–96.

  43. 43.

    Judgment in Club Hotel Loutraki, para 39 above, EU:T:2015:1, para 92.

  44. 44.

    Von Danwitz (2009), p. 118.

  45. 45.

    Judgment in Club Hotel Loutraki, para 39 above, EU:T:2015:1, para 92.

  46. 46.

    Similar arguments are expressed in the commentary of Amsel (2015).

  47. 47.

    Doukas and Anderson (2008), p. 266.

  48. 48.

    Van den Bogaert (2011), p. 1211.

  49. 49.

    Arendts (2007), pp. 51–52.

References

  • Amsel P (2015) European Union court says no foul in Greek Government’s fattening of OPAP, 9 January 2015. http://calvinayre.com/2015/01/09/casino/european-commission-rules-opap-vlt-monopoly-deals-legal/. Accessed 6 Mar 2015

  • Arendts M (2007) A view of European gambling regulation from the perspective of private operators. In: Littler A, Fijnant C (eds) The regulation of gambling, European and national perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 41–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon K (2013) European Union law of state aid. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brassi M, del Frederico L (2005) The notion of tax and the different types of taxes. In: Peeters B (ed) The concept of tax, 2005 EATLP Congress, Naples, 27–29 May 2005. IBFD, Amsterdam, pp 59–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Doukas D, Anderson J (2008) Commercial gambling without frontiers: when the ECJ throws, the dice is loaded. Yearb Eur Law 27(1):237–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Sauter W (2012) EU competition and internal market in the health care sector. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lignè S (2011) Online gambling: competitive tax rate for online gambling is compatible with EU State aid rules. Press release. http://pr.euractiv.com/pr/online-gambling-competitive-tax-rate-online-gambling-compatible-eu-state-aid-rules-91422. Accessed 24 Jul 2015

  • Liszt M, Petrović S (2011) Kriteriji za dodjelu dopuštenih državnih potpora. In: Čulinović Herc E, Jurić D, Žunić Kovačević N (eds) Financiranje, upravljanje i restrukturiranje trgovačkih društava u doba recesije. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Rijeka, pp 27–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheau C (2011) State aid and taxation in EU law. In: Szyszazak E (ed) Research handbook on European State aid law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 193–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides P (2013) Competition and advantage under internal market and State aid rules: is there a gap in the law? Leg Issues Econ Integr 40(3):271–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Staes M (2015) The combined application of the fundamental freedoms and the EU State aid rules: in search of a way out of the maze Intertax 42(2):106–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert C (2011) Money for nothing’: the case law of the EU Court of Justice on the regulation of gambling. Common Mark Law Rev 48(4):1175–1213

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Danwitz T (2009) State aid control over public services: a view from the Court. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, Van de Gronden J (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe, between competition and solidarity. T M C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 117–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Ana Pošćić

Authors
  1. Ana Pošćić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Pošćić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. General Court of EU, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Vesna Tomljenović

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Vlatka Butorac Malnar

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Ivana Kunda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pošćić, A. (2017). State Aid and Gambling Services. In: Tomljenović, V., Bodiroga-Vukobrat, N., Butorac Malnar, V., Kunda, I. (eds) EU Competition and State Aid Rules. Europeanization and Globalization, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47961-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47962-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation