WRITTEN QUESTION P-3281/02 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Electronic games.
Date: 2002-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, automatic game, exchange of information, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, game of chance, right of establishment, trade regulations, trade restriction

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/105

Property Organisation (WIPO). With regard to other types of names, like trade names, personal names or
geographical names, they may only rely on national law for their protection.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), aware of this situation, has undertaken an extensive
consultation process on domain names and has concluded at a meeting at the end of September 2002 that
it would not, at this stage, submit additional proposals concerning the extension of the UDRP to deal with
domain-grabbing involving personal names. During that meeting,
it was also agreed to continue
monitoring the situation with regard to international non proprietary names of pharmaceutical products
(INNs) and trade names while recommending specific types of protection for
intergovernmental
organisations (IGOs) and country names. As concerns Geographical Indications, the Commission, with
the full support of the Member States, has insisted in ensuring the highest possible level of protection for
geographical
indications in the Domain Name System. Hence, during the 9th session of the Standing
Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (WIPO SCT) which
took place in Geneva from 11 to 15 November 2002,
the Commission Delegation requested the
International Bureau to prepare a paper summarising the discussions that have taken place on this in this
fora. That document shall constitute the basis of a substantive discussion during the tenth session of the
WIPO SCT in May 2003.

The Honourable Member may find more detailed information in http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/ and
http://www.wipo.int/sct/en/.

(2003/C 192 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3281/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Electronic games

In reply to my question No H-0522/02 concerning the draft law on electric, electro-mechanical and
electronic games (1), which was to be debated in the Greek Parliament, the Commission said that it could
not comment at that particular time. The Commission also stated that it had received information
concerning the probable intention of the Greek authorities to ban the use of such games except in casinos
and that it had asked the Greek authorities to inform it about the current framework law governing the
use of equipment for games of chance and games for amusement. The Commission also asked the Greek
authorities for clarification of their intentions in relation to any new legislation on this matter. At present,
the subject is covered by Law 3037/2002 which entirely prohibits the use of such games.

Did the Greek authorities notify the Commission of Law 3037/2002 in accordance with Directive 98/34/
EC (2)? If so, is that law consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 49, 50, 43, 45 and
28 of the EC Treaty? What does the Commission intend to do should this law prove to be contrary to the
Treaties?

(1) Written answer of 2.7.2002.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Greek law 3037/2002 seems to introduce a complete ban as from 1 August 2002, on the installation
and operation of all electric, electronic and electromechanical games, amusement-technical games and all
games used by means of computers, in all public or private places except for casinos.

The Commission has examined complaints concerning certain provisions of the legislation in question in
the light of Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods.

C 192 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In this respect, this law could be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative
restrictions on imports, prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the ban appears to be
disproportionate as to the aims pursued and does not seem to be justified under the grounds provided by
Article 30 of the EC Treaty or the mandatory requirements accepted by the Court of Justice. Therefore, a
letter of formal notice in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty has been sent to the Greek
authorities.

Following the questions of the Honourable MEPs, the Commission’ services are ready to examine elements
of the law falling under Article 43 of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and under Article 49 on
the free provision of services, as well as with regard to the obligations of Member States under Directive
98/34/EC (1).

(1) Directive 98/34 as modified by Directive 98/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on
Information Society services (cid:1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

(2003/C 192 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Acts of aggression directed at Community nationals at a Turkish sports stadium

A few days ago, an official international football match was held between the Greek Panathinaikos and
Turkish Fenerbahce teams. Before, during and after the match the 1500 Greek Panathinaikos fans were
attacked and many of them injured by thousands of Turkish supporters. The situation was further
aggravated by the presence in the stand of a giant hoarding bearing anti-Greek slogans erected by means
of a special mechanism situated directly opposite the Panathinaikos supporters’ seats, which had clearly
required a concerted effort to bring it into the stadium and set it up, leading to the justified conclusion
that this was not simply a case of isolated actions by Turkish supporters.

Moreover, serious episodes occurred before, during and after the Fenerbahce-Galatasaray fixture on
6 November 2002, with Turkish television continuously broadcasting scenes of Fenerbahce supporters
wielding knives (!) in the vicinity of the football field and trainers’ benches. Turkish supporters were also
behind serious incidents occurring two years ago involving the stabbing of British Arsenal fans at a match
against the Galatasaray team in Istanbul.

As a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport,
I should like to know the Commission’s view of the precedented attacks on the Panathinaikos fans,
European Community nationals who were visiting Turkey for an international sports fixture. What
provisions are contained in the Schengen Agreement regarding supporters with a record of provoking such
incidents in the past or where there are grounds for suspecting that they wish to enter Community
territory in order to provoke further violent clashes?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission condemns all
involved or the place where the incidents occur.

forms of hooliganism,

irrespective of the nationality of the persons

To improve co-operation between law enforcement authorities of the Member States, the Council adopted
on 25 April 2002 on the basis of Art 30 of the Treaty on the European Union a decision concerning
security in connection with football matches with an international dimension (1), that aims at improving
the information exchange between the authorities involved in guaranteeing that these sportive events do
not get distracted by trouble-makers.