Insight
CZECH REPUBLIC City Legislation
Several other cities were also fined by the Office in connection with their gambling bans. Nevertheless, it does not mean that granting individual targeted exemptions would necessarily always be fined
exceptions. However, according to the Office for the Protection of Competition, such regulation is not always lawful. An example is the City of Ostrava, where they only allowed gambling at selected addresses listed in the annex to the decree. Te Office for the Protection of Competition subsequently imposed a fine on the City of Ostrava for violating the Act on the Protection of Competition, as these places were not selected on the basis of objective, non- discriminatory and known criteria.
According to the Office, the City of Ostrava, without objective reasons, distorted competition on the market for the operation of gambling in the City of Ostrava by favouring competitors who could continue to operate gambling in the permitted places.
Another example is the City of Brno, which also faced a fine from the Office for the Protection of Competition. Te City of Brno issued a decree on a total ban on gambling in 2014, with the
for distortion of competition. These exceptions may be lawful if they are determined on the basis of objective justifiable criteria.
exception of two specific casinos. Subsequently, in 2017 Brno adopted the "Rules of the Statutory City of Brno for the definition of localities that can be included among the places where gambling may be permitted". Tese rules contain conditions for the inclusion of further targeted exceptions in the decree regulating the operation of gambling.
In July 2017 an additional operator applied to be included in the decree as another exception to the gambling ban. Despite the relatively transparent and objectively set conditions, the City of Brno rejected the application, although the applicant met all the conditions set out in the Rules. After nine months, the City of Brno eventually included the applicant among the
exceptions. Te Office for the Protection of Competition fined the City of Brno for the nine months of violating its own rules without stating any objective reasons, thus unlawfully preventing this applicant from entering the relevant market. Te City of Brno filed an appeal against the decision; however, the Office confirmed its initial decision as well as the fine in July this year.
Several other cities were also fined by the Office in connection with their gambling bans. Nevertheless, it does not mean that granting individual targeted exemptions would necessarily always be fined for distortion of competition. Tese exceptions may be lawful if they are determined on the basis of objective justifiable criteria. For example, the rules for granting exemptions laid down by the City of Brno meet such an aspect of objectivity and had the City of Brno not unjustifiably deviate from them, its practice would most likely be in compliance with the law.
NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE / MARKET DATA P51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94
