•
This was the original title (and much better ) of the German Federal Court of Justice, after the I. Zivilsenat (first division for civil matters) at the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) dismissed in four cases action filed by state-run gambling providers (among others Westlotto) against private sports betting providers holding GDR and EU licences (among others bwin).
The press release says :
“(…) the previous instances had held that the prohibition of illegal gambling, enforced by penalties, does not violate European Community law nor German Constitutional Law. (…) The Bundesgerichtshof has not assented to this evaluation. The landmark decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) dated 28 March 2006 (1 BvR 1054/01) is said to mean that the state betting monopoly in Germany, in the legal and actual form it had taken during the decisive period of time before 28 March 2006, represented a disproportionate interference with the freedom of profession of persons interested in professional activities of this kind, this therefore being inconsistent with Art. 12 paragraph 1 GG (Grundgesetz – German Constitution). At the same time, it represented an unjustified restriction of the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services guaranteed under Art. 43 and 49 EC. Due to the state betting monopoly’s inconsistency with the Constitution and with Community law during the period of time before the judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht on 28 March 2006, Section 284 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch – German Criminal Code) could not be applied to the offering of sports bets in the cases to be decided here, where acts carried out in the years 2003 to 2005 are to be considered (so-called “old casesâ€).â€
Gaminglaw.eu comes with more details and explains :
This means that, while the BGH in the “Schöner Wetten†decision in 2004 expressly demanded a German betting licence in order to exclude the applicability of Section 284 StGB, it now abandons this principle and turns to Community law.
Thus, if the new state treaty on gambling also violated Community law, an EU licence would be sufficient to exclude the applicability of Section 284 StGB, and thus a violation of competition.Â
•
Interesting case in France, where a court has decided that a bookmaker doesn’t have the right to use the trademark Juventus in order to promote one of his offers.
what if I say AC Milan ? 
Via casinowire
The Civil Court of First Instance in France has ruled that Unibet and William Hill were guilty of “counterfeiting†when they used the trademarked word “Juventus†on their websites in either comments or slogans to promote their betting action.
Both companies have been ordered to pay a €1 fine to Juventus as a token and €10,000 in legal fees each.
The court ruled that if the online sports betting operators are permitted to use brand names of sports teams to advertise games for which they are offering bets, this must be strictly limited to being used only when a bet is being placed.
Unibet’s mrbookmaker.com website carried a French slogan which translates as:
“Two giants of European football meet Tuesday night at 8.45pm. Real Madrid with its nine UEFA champions league victories will receive Juventus from Turin. This will be a special game for French player Zinedine Zidan who played in the Italian colours before joining the Spanish team.â€
Both operators expressly denied trying to use the name as a brand and implied that their intention was only to inform what betting options were available.
•
German gambling act, as expected, is officially challanged by the EU Commission that started the official investigation against Germany, as the internal Market commissioner Charlie McCreevy announced :
This new inquiry focuses on a number of provisions of the new legislation which entered into force on 1.1.2008. Some of the key restrictions that are questioned in terms of their compatibility with the EC Treaty’s Internal Market provisions are as follows: the total prohibition of games of chance on the Internet; notably sports betting, on which the Commission sent to Germany in March 2007 a detailed opinion; advertising restrictions on TV, on the Internet or on jerseys or billboards; and the prohibition on financial institutions to process and execute payments relating to unauthorised games of chance. In addition, questions are raised regarding the authorisation regime to be granted to intermediaries as well as the criminal sanctions or administrative fines provided for in cases of organisation, advertising and participation in on-line games of chance.
However, it should be noted that in Germany horse race betting on the Internet is not prohibited and slot machines have been widely expanded. Moreover, advertising of games of chance by mail, in the press and on radio is still permitted.
Sweden joined Germany on the chopping block for similar problems :
The European Commission has decided to send an official request for information on national legislation restricting the supply and promotion of certain gambling services to Sweden. In April 2006 the Commission sent a similar request for information to Sweden concerning sports betting (IP/06/436). In this new case the Commission wishes to verify whether all national measures relating to poker games and tournaments are consistent and therefore compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty, which guarantees the free movement of services. The Commission’s decision relates only to the compatibility of the national measures in question with existing EU law. It does not touch upon the existence of monopolies as such, or on national lotteries. Nor does it have any implications for the liberalisation of the market for gambling services generally, or for the entitlement of Member States to seek to protect the general interest, so long as this is done in a manner consistent with EU law i.e. that any measures are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. The letter of formal notice is the first step in an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. Sweden has two months in which to respond. The Commission hopes that the answer it receives will lead to an early and satisfactory resolution of the matter.
This latest inquiry into Swedish national gambling restrictions focuses on various issues relating to poker games and tournaments.
Poker games and tournaments are today offered in Swedish international casinos and, since 2006, the state-owned company also offers such services online on a large scale. However, the national legislation prevents online poker games and tournaments offered by operators licensed and regulated in other Member States. Also, it provides for restrictions and criminal sanctions on the promotion both of online poker offered by a licensed service provider in another Member State, and of poker organised within licensed premises in another Member State.
•
Italy has been convicted twice before the European Court of Justice for its gambling legislation, lack of clarity and infringement of the EU treaties. But where do we go from here?
Is the main result of these decisions the fact that Italian market is open for every new competitor ? Well, things are more complicated than it seems – Simon Banks has an interesting article that describes the present situation :
The liberalization of European gambling markets is proving long and somewhat tortuous as state monopolies struggle desperately to hang on to their privileged positions, despite the European Court of Justice consistently ruling in favor of operators trying to break into potentially lucrative markets. … Nowhere has the process been more fractious than in Italy, where two landmark rulings by the ECJ appear to have finally persuaded the Italian authorities that a system of licensing and regulating foreign operators is preferable to attempting prohibition.
(…)
With a relaxation of the regulatory regime thanks to pressure from Brussels, the Italian market would appear ripe for exploitation. However, an understanding of the Italian market and sports betting culture will be crucial for any operator seeking to take advantage of developments. While European operators, with their sports betting expertise, are leading the first wave of new entrants to the Italian market, it will probably be casino companies that will profit in the long term if, as expected, Italy eventually opens up its gaming market as it has its wagering market.