CHARLIE McCREEVY SHOWS HIS TEETH: GAMING WAR CONTINUES
23 October 06: Interview with EU internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy for German magazine “Der Spiegel” on the „Lotto war“ between the EU and Germany:
“Same right applies to all”
Spiegel: “Still in this year the German (federal) Prime Ministers are planning to sign a new lottery state treaty and by doing that cementing the current state monopoly. Are you going to accept that?”
McCreevy: “Not at all. Even the restrictive regulations for Gambling providers currently applying for Germany are not acceptable from the EU-commissions point of view. They exclude private providers, are opposing the freedom of services in the internal market and are therefore breaking European law. Even German courts overruled them. Now the Chancellor wants to even enforce these restrictions and expand them. This is not acceptable.”
Spiegel: “What are you planning to do?”
McCreevy: “What we normally do in such cases: We initiate infringement procedures, which are a little bit complicated and need some time and are finally directed to the European Court of Justice. Not only against Germany, but also against nine other countries the commission has already initiated such proceedings. I hope that we do not have to go until the last instance with all involved countries. But if these countries are not willing to understand we will do so.
Spiegel: “Why is it Brussels’ business how France and Germany are organising their lottery or sports betting? Is this sector also supposed to be harmonised and liberalized?”
McCreevy: “No, not at all. The mental, cultural and juridical differences in the attitude towards gambling are huge among the EU member countries, comparable to the attitude towards alcohol. Therefore no one in Brussels plans to harmonise or liberalize this sector. This attempt would not work anyway. Me and the next ten commissioners after me could spend the next fifty years on that and would still not succeed.”
Spiegel: “So what is it that bothers you?”
McCreevy: “Also the national rules, no matter how different they are, have to follow the European basic principle: Same right applies to all.”
Spiegel: “And the existing rules do not follow this principle?”
McCreevy: “No, there are many cases of discrimination. For example national state owned providers are allowed to advertise in many ways but private providers are not allowed to do so. This is not acceptable. Or internet-providers from other country are blocked whereas online-activities of the national state-owned monopolists are tolerated. In these cases we are obliged to intervene.”
Spiegel: “Obliged?“
McCreevy: “Yes. First of all complaints from private providers are forcing us to intervene. Secondly the breach of EU-law is obviously. We cannot ignore that. From the juridical point of view these are the facts: The providing of gambling services has to be regarded as a service, this was confirmed by the European Court of Justice. If someone is allowed to offer this service in one country he cannot be excluded from another country. The countries are allowed to restrict and regulate the offer but this has to apply to all providers.
Spiegel: “German politicians defend their insistence on the monopoly with the argumentation that they want to protect the public from the risks of gambling addiction and that they want to direct the play instinct into regulated channels.“
McCreevy: “What bars them from doing that? Like any other country Germany can enact as strict laws as it would like to do. Restrictions for advertising, maximum jackpots, age restrictions – but it has to be rules that apply to everybody in the same way that means for private and state-owned providers in the same way.
Spiegel: “Is a general ban on gambling also possible?”
McCreevy: “Of course as this would not be discriminatory.”
Spiegel: “But there is also the idea that state-owned providers are less profit-oriented than private ones and more interested in welfare.”
McCreevy: “Do you believe that?”
Spiegel: “You do not?”
McCreevy: “I do not believe any word of it. Of course also state-owned lotteries are interested in profit. Many of them invest millions into advertising. Why is that – for the purpose of welfare or to increase revenue? Once more: Every country that wants to restrict its gambling market is free to do so in any way it would like to do so. From Brussels point of view this is perfectly fine. Provided that no double standards are applied and state-owned companies are treated in the same way as all other providers.
Spiegel: “Are you in Brussels considering joint measures for the limitation of online-gambling because of its high gambling addiction risk?”
McCreevy: “Should we act as we were the upper-upholder of moral standards? No.”
Spiegel: “By the end of September the U.S. congress has prohibited internet-casinos and -betting providers.”
McCreevy: “The election campaign commences and during that period it is almost tradition to target certain voter segments by means of morally or religiously motivated activities. In Europe this is, like many things, completely different.”
(Germany 23 October 2006, Der Spiegel, page 90)
The Amsterdam-based attorney and gaming law expert Justin Franssen (Van Mens & Wisselink) provided me with the above translation.
Not only the gaming (gambling, betting) laws of Germany and Italy are in violation with European law, so are the laws of The Netherlands. The European Commission urged The Netherlands to amend its legislation to legalize internet gambling, but up to now the Dutch government refuses to do so. It only allows state-organized organizations to offer such services and thus does not allow any competition. The Dutch government should open its borders. The question is not if but when those monopolies will be broken.
Karel Frielink
