EU BYTES EU Bytes
Former Executive Director of the European Casino Association and current Managing Director of Time & Place Consulting, Glenn Cezanne provides the latest info on what’s trending and what’s coming down the pipeline in Brussels and around the EU.
J Glenn Cezanne
ust across from our office here in Brussels, there are mini excavators racing across the top of an “old” office building, shaving off a floor at the time. It feels like that are filming part 215 of that famous drifting/racing movie
series. Buildings in Brussels have been knocked down and re-built around the European quarter at an alarming pace, but I still think I am sitting in the nicest one. Why else would the representations of Bayer, the European Casino Association, the German Bundestag and Red Hat chose to stay in it? As mentioned to you on several occasions, the online sector has become the primary source of gambling policy discourse at EU level, but the link between online and offline can be thick; with varying degrees across the Member States of course. The newest development? The European Commission has finally given its implementation decision to the European Standardisation body (CEN) to move ahead with developing data reporting standards for online gambling. The CEN Technical Committee (CEN/TC) 456 on
“Reporting in support of online gambling supervision” received its mandate at the beginning of April this year. Why is this interesting for the European Commission? It believes that in the absence of European regulation and common standards for the sector, each Member State has gone ahead and done its own thing. Therefore, it is looking to counteract unnecessary burdens to operators, suppliers and gambling authorities in terms of duplications. As set out in the mandate of the European Commission: “it is appropriate to minimise, where possible, avoidable administrative burden resulting from compliance with regulatory reporting requirements which entails additional operational costs, notably for small and medium-sized companies.” Before you decide to either stand up to applaud the initiative or start throwing rotten eggs in
28 MAY 2018
Brussels, depending on whether you support an EU approach to gambling regulation or are an ardent supporter of the Member State (remember “subsidiarity”?) approach, I just want to highlight a couple of points. Firstly, it is considered a voluntary tool to the Member States’ gambling regulatory authorities and which are to be introduced “without prejudice to the scope of competence of Member States in the regulation of online gambling and without imposing any obligation on them to introduce reporting requirements or to authorise or deny authorisation to any operators or suppliers.” But, even though this sounds tame, links are made
between the prospective standards and the raison d’être or foundation of what each Member State gambling regulation is based on. The Commission has set out that the standards should “achieve public policy objectives, in particular raising the level of player protection, including addiction prevention and the protection of minors, through more effective supervision”. This will then always beg the question at political
level of why a Member State would not implement the standards if they are for the benefit of society and their public policy objectives? Ask a subsidiarity principle supporter and he/she might explain that each country or region has their own regulation founded on their own experiences and culture. Therefore, using standards that don’t correspond to how the respective regulation has developed would be counterproductive. As regards the opposite camp, they might state that the more countries that apply the standards, the easier it would be to replicate their services to those other jurisdictions. It could make B2B services more competitive too, due to competing companies’ technology being tailored to the same requirements. I let you decide which of the two camps you feel more affiliated to. So, what clues do we already have about what the
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
