WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy aimed at limiting compulsive gambling.
Date: 2004-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, freedom to provide services, game of chance, gaming establishment, right of establishment, trade licence

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/929

However, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the application of national rules to providers
of services established in another Member State must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the
objective which they pursue and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see Court of
Justice ruling of 25 July 1991 in case C-76/90). On the basis of information provided, the Commission has
analysed national rules which might restrict the freedom to provide services for tourist guides who
accompany a closed group of tourists on a tour from another Member State in the light of the EC Treaty,
in particular Article 49 and the Court’s jurisprudence. As a consequence, the Commission has sent on the
basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, a letter of formal notice to Italy on 19 December 2003.

The Commission is certainly ready to examine the situation in other Member States on the basis of further
information which the Honourable Member might provide.

that

stipulates

The proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional
qualifications (1)
relating to professional
qualifications, restrict the freedom to provide services when the beneficiary is legally established in
another Member State.
It contributes to a further simplification of requirements with regard to the
provision of services, as compared to establishment, and clarifies the concept of the provision of services.
The adoption of this proposal would, therefore, provide further certainty and guarantees for tourist guides
providing services into different Member States.

the Member States may not,

reasons

for

(1) OJ C 181 E, 30.7.2002.

(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

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?

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?

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?

Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might

6.
allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned?

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

C 78 E/930

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(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
the proposed Directive. The proposed Directive also provides for a derogation to the
adoption of
the time that European
application of
harmonisation in this field might exist.

the principle of country of origin to such services until

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.

(2004/C 78 E/0984)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy

(21 January 2004)

According to reports in the Italian press, the ultra-modern public hospital in Rome, INMI L. Spallanzani,
which specialises in infectious diseases,
is gradually being converted into a ‘national security’ medical
establishment. This means that it will be equipped (cid:1) if it has not been already (cid:1) with maximum security
laboratories for combating level 4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, bacillus etc.).

As the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated areas of Rome, will the Commission say
whether the hospital has obtained the necessary certification to operate from international and European
organisations, particularly in regard to storing level 4 pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Does the
Commission know whether an agreement has been signed between Italy and the USA to combat
biological terrorism?