# CE2004084EN.01005801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/58

---

(2004/C 84 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

Subject:

Plans by some Member States to market their own state lottery tickets in other Member States and in non-EU countries presuppose a change in the nature of such export transactions, hitherto deemed to be illegal.

Some of these lotteries offer very attractive prizes, which is why citizens in other Member States seek to buy tickets for them in their own countries.

Can the Commission say which Community rules could be applied to the free marketing of state lottery tickets throughout the EU and what could be done to overcome the problem posed by the fact that the sale of lottery tickets outside the issuing Member State is currently considered illegal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

(10 December 2003)

According to the judgement of the Court of Justice, marketing of a state lottery should be examined under Article 49 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services): in the Schindler case (C-275/92), the Court ruled in fact that the offer into a Member State of advertisements and tickets of a lottery operated in another Member State relates to a ‘service’ within the meaning of the EC Treaty.

It is not entirely clear whether it refers to restrictions from the country of origin to the export of national lottery tickets (in this case, it might be useful to make also reference, by analogy, to the Court decision in the Alpine case, C-34/93, concerning financial services) and/or to restrictions from a recipient country to the import of foreign lottery tickets (which was the case in the Schindler case).

A complete legal assessment of the issue can be carried out only on a case by case basis, according to the specific circumstances of each situation, however, it can be noted that the existing jurisprudence does not suggest, as the Honourable Member implies, that such activities would necessarily be illegal.

From a general point of view, it is true that the Court has recognised, in the Schindler case, that national authorities could have a degree of latitude to impose restrictions on the sale of lottery tickets issued by another country to protect consumers and, more generally, in the light of the specific social and cultural features of each Member State, to maintain order in society, as regards the manner in which lotteries are operated, the size of the stakes, and the allocation of the profits they yield.

However, it has to be considered that in that case the relevant national authority did not operate a national lottery and applied this ban to all such services in a non-discriminatory fashion. Moreover, the Court has recently refined its doctrine both in the Gambelli case (C-243/01), where it has stated that restrictions in the area of gambling must serve to limit such activities in a consistent and systematic manner, and in the Lindman case (C-42/02), where it has clarified the need for a Member State to demonstrate the appropriateness and proportionality of such restrictive measures.

---