EU commission accused of 'lacking courage' over gambling

A former top European judge has accused the commission of "lacking the courage" to become involved in efforts to clarify gambling's legal status.

As gambling activities are traditionally regulated at member state level, the executive has never proposed any common EU-wide rules for their regulation.

But, speaking in parliament on Thursday, Professor Siegbert Alber criticised the commission's approach, saying, "It is a pity the commission does not have the courage to propose rules in this sector but would rather wait for court rulings."

The exclusion of gambling from the services directive has led to complaints from the industry about access to national markets.

Alber, a former advocate-general at the European Court of Justice, told the breakfast briefing - organised by the Parliament magazine - there was currently a backlog of ten such cases which are currently awaiting judgement.

Nor did member states escape the wrath of Alber, an MEP from 1977-97 and now a Brussels-based lawyer.

"They currently have the discretion to regulate in this field but this represents a restriction on the freedom to provide services in the internal market and, to date, member states have failed to justify such a restriction."

The "fair play for gambling" event brought together players from across the debate to discuss  progress in opening up national markets in gambling, gaming and sports betting.

The event comes a week before MEPs vote on an own-initiative report on the 'integrity' of online gambling by Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose.

UK Tory MEP Malcolm Harbour, who chaired the discussion, said he supports the idea of an impact assessment exercise and further research being carried out on the possible consequences of liberalisation of the market.

He said, "I would also urge the commission and member states to make some progress on this issue."

His party colleague, Emmanouil Angelakas, meanwhile, said he would press for the creation of a parliamentary intergroup to study "all aspects" of the issue after June's European elections.

During a question and answer session, Konstantinos Maragkakis from Stanleybet International, said, "Prejudice and pre-conceived ideas," in the current discussion are clouding understanding of the issues around the regulation of online gambling.

He reiterated the differences between the idea of a liberalised market as compared to a regulated market denying that a more open arrangement would create a “free for all” or dry up streams of revenue for state lottery projects saying it is “an issue of policies not control.”

He also rebuffed allegations that, “private companies are all bad,” claiming that they often showed great integrity in this field, or that the current moves could lead to an increase in match fixing, citing the UK as an excellent example of a well regulated, open market.

His comments were echoed by Stanleybet's deputy director-general Adrian Morris which told this website that there was a clear need for "more data on the size and structure of the gambling market" across Europe.

Morris said he doubted whether opening up national markets to gambling would see member state monopolies lose any significant revenues.

"[National] lotteries and sports betting are different markets, I doubt there would be a lot of revenue lost" [by national monopolies]

Sigrid Ligne, secretary general of the European Gaming and Betting Association, called for a European code of conduct to help regulate the industry.

She said, “There should be some sort of regulation and I think the best option is to do it at EU level. The problem is that there is no momentum and nor does there appear to be any consensus in the European parliament.”

“We are fed up with court rulings but, if necessary, will continue to defend our position in the courts.”

Figures from British research in 2006 seem to back up the argument that state lotteries return a significant proportion of their income back into society. Using the UK as an example, figures show that 41 per cent of income is channelled back into good causes compared to an average of 26 per cent worldwide.

• Previous article
• Next article