WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Export of lottery tickets from one country to another.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: case-law (EU), export, freedom to provide services, game of chance, illicit trade, legal basis, marketing

C 84 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

At the recent session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights in Geneva (UNHCR), the Union
tabled a resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK. This was adopted by the UNHCR on
16 April 2003 and included a mention of the North Korean refugees in China.

The Union has consistently, within its political dialogue with China, expressed concern about the forcible
repatriations of North Korean asylum (cid:1) seekers to the DPRK. The issue has also been addressed within the
Union (cid:1) China Human Rights Dialogue. The Union will again raise the matter during the upcoming
round of this dialogue, on 27/28 November 2003 in Beijing, China.

(2004/C 84 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03

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

Subject: Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

(3 November 2003)

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)

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

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/59

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.

(2004/C 84 E/0066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries

Following extensive research, the Environmental Justice Foundation has concluded that the high levels of
bycatch associated with shrimp fisheries are causing ecological degradation on a global scale. According to
the FAO, shrimp fisheries alone are responsible for one third of the world’s discarded catch, despite
producing less than 2 % of seafood. Although shrimp fisheries are particularly non-selective, the issue of
bycatch is not limited to these fisheries. Millions of tonnes of bycatch are caught by a variety of fishing
methods every year, with trawlers, gillnets and longlines being responsible for a leading share.
these fisheries will unquestionably lead to a decline in marine biodiversity and
Left unmanaged,
productivity, along with increased unemployment and poverty in coastal areas.
In 1994, the United
Nations General Assembly stated that ‘the issue of bycatch and discards in fishing operations warrants
serious attention by the international community,’ yet insufficient action has been taken to resolve this
over-exploitation. In order to address the issue of bycatch on a global level, EJF recommends the adoption
of an ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch Reduction’ under the auspices of the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation. EJF would like the EU to take the lead in calling for this IPOA at the next viable
opportunity. Given that the EU has recently reformed the CFP to prioritise conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources, such a proposal would be in line with current European concerns.
An IPOA would not only assist the EU in addressing its own bycatch levels (including those associated
with long-distance fleets), but would also push forward international policy in terms of reducing wastage
from fisheries.

1. What EU initiatives currently address bycatch reduction (rather than solely reduction in discards) in
European waters, and bycatch reduction in long-distance fleets in third-country waters?

2.

How does the EU monitor bycatch levels and the impacts of bycatch on marine ecosystems?

Is the EU prepared to take a lead in calling for a UN FAO ‘International Plan of Action on Bycatch

3.
Reduction’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the serious problem caused by high levels of by-catch in certain fisheries and
the associated decline in marine biodiversity and productivity. The Commission shares the Honourable
Member’s concern and agrees on the urgent need to address the problem at a global level.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) gives priority to
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of
fisheries
resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1) in the reformed CFP envisages ‘specific measures to reduce
the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and non-target species’, as well as ‘establishing
incentives, including those of an economic nature, to promote more selective or low impact fishing’.