# CE2004078EN.01092901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/929 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/929

---

(2004/C 78 E/0983)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy aimed at limiting compulsive gambling

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of Question No 462 put on 11 November 2003 by the Netherlands Member of Parliament De Wit (socialist party) to the Ministers of Justice and Economic Affairs on the Netherlands policy regarding games of chance, and the answer given on 12 December 2003 by Minister Donner to the effect that an EU Member State can restrict the supply of games of chance for reasons of public interest, such as combating gambling addiction, and that this certainly applies if the Member State itself does not encourage people to take part in lotteries, games of chance or betting for the sake of financial gain for its own treasury? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of Question No 462 put on 11 November 2003 by the Netherlands Member of Parliament De Wit (socialist party) to the Ministers of Justice and Economic Affairs on the Netherlands policy regarding games of chance, and the answer given on 12 December 2003 by Minister Donner to the effect that an EU Member State can restrict the supply of games of chance for reasons of public interest, such as combating gambling addiction, and that this certainly applies if the Member State itself does not encourage people to take part in lotteries, games of chance or betting for the sake of financial gain for its own treasury?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view of Minister Donner as expressed in this answer? Does this mean that in future foreign casino chains will not be able to establish themselves in the Netherlands on the grounds of freedom of movement within the internal market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view of Minister Donner as expressed in this answer? Does this mean that in future foreign casino chains will not be able to establish themselves in the Netherlands on the grounds of freedom of movement within the internal market?

| 3. | Is it aware that currently a number of companies, such as ‘JVH Gaming’ from Tilburg and the French firm ‘Tranchant’ are nonetheless using EU rules in support of their attempts to obtain licences to open casinos in the Netherlands and to interpret licences to run slot machine arcades more broadly as authorisation to open full casinos? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it aware that currently a number of companies, such as ‘JVH Gaming’ from Tilburg and the French firm ‘Tranchant’ are nonetheless using EU rules in support of their attempts to obtain licences to open casinos in the Netherlands and to interpret licences to run slot machine arcades more broadly as authorisation to open full casinos?

| 4. | Is the Commission also aware that the firms referred to in paragraph 3 take the view that refusal of their requests for licences are in violation of EU regulations? In the opinion of the Commission, is there any justification for this view? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission also aware that the firms referred to in paragraph 3 take the view that refusal of their requests for licences are in violation of EU regulations? In the opinion of the Commission, is there any justification for this view?

| 5. | Does the Commission share the view that, given the public interest and the need to combat compulsive gambling, games of chance of this kind should continue to fall within the decision-making remit of the national authorities? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission share the view that, given the public interest and the need to combat compulsive gambling, games of chance of this kind should continue to fall within the decision-making remit of the national authorities?

| 6. | Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned?

Source: The Dutch newspaper BN-De Stem of 6 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

(3 March 2004)

In response to the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission was not aware neither of the Dutch Parliamentary exchange between Mr De Wit and Minister Donner nor of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member and concerning certain companies which are apparently seeking to enter the Dutch casino market. The Commission cannot therefore take a specific position on these issues at this stage.

Nevertheless it would like to remind that the European Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions (and more recently in the Gambelli judgment, see case C-243/01) that restrictions to gambling services in the form of licences or other authorisation procedures constitute restrictions to both the freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC Treaty) and the free movement of services (Article 49 EC Treaty).

Having regard to the Honourable Member's fifth and sixth questions, the Commission recognises that such restrictions can be justified by general interest objectives, such as public order (notably the fight against fraud) and consumer protection (in particular the dangers to minors and of compulsive gambling). However, in line with the ECJ case-law, the Commission considers that such national restrictions must be proportionate in meeting those general interest objectives, in other words, that they must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.

The Commission, therefore, believes that restrictions to establishment and to cross-border provision in this field need to be assessed in the light of the specific risks associated with the relevant gambling activities. For the moment, no specific secondary EU legislation exists in this field. However, in consideration of the increasing cross-border mobility of consumers and of the increased provision of distance gambling services, the Commission has announced that it will launch a study on this issue during the course of 2004. It has also included these services in its recent proposal for a Directive on services in the Internal Market (1). This text mainly requires Member States to assess the existing restrictions in the framework of a joint screening exercise with the Commission and stakeholders, to be carried out within one year after the adoption of the proposed Directive. The proposed Directive also provides for a derogation to the application of the principle of country of origin to such services until the time that European harmonisation in this field might exist.

1

The question of the need for such European harmonisation will be assessed in the light of the results of the mutual evaluation foreseen in the Services Directive by Member States as well as of the Commission's above-mentioned study. The Commission believes that this constructive and collaborative approach will ensure a European solution that allows for a high level of protection of both public order and consumer protection in the area of gambling services.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 2 final.

1

---