A LEGISLATIVE LOOK AT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN EUROPE Interesting for the skilled workforce inherent
to the gambling sector, whether as an expatriate or highly mobile, are the rights of UK citizens and EU citizens in each other’s jurisdiction. No one is sure what the conditions will be post-Brexit for workforce mobility between the jurisdictions. There are already fears of brain drains from the UK, not only because of citizens’ status, but also because of issues such as EU funding and projects which might no longer be accessible in the UK. Applications to become a national of one of the EU-27 deriving from the UK are already on all-time highs. The pressure is piling on for both sides of the negotiating table. Members of the European Parliament are pushing for certainty, as are industry due to the high volume of trade between the counterparts. Banks have already started to move out of the UK, and Japan is only looking to formalise post-Brexit trade ties with the UK once it better understands what deal might be established between the EU and UK. Indeed, the UK cannot enter a trade agreement with another country until it leaves the EU. At the same time, the EU wants its budgetary commitment safeguarded, as well as guaranteeing that the UK doesn’t unfairly benefit from the EU, whilst others would have to commit to its ideals and rules for the same benefits. It is also labelled as a deterrent to avoid other EU Member States wanting to leave the EU. So, what are the options for the EU and UK? And will new arrangements be transitional? Some have hinted towards a Norwegian model based on the European Economic Area and European Free Trade Association membership – i.e. watered-down variation of the EU. All in all, it is clear that both parties are looking for certainty. The question is, will progress happen quickly enough? The EU-27’s aim is to have Phase 2 start in October. Very few are confident it will.
Tackling Illegal Operations Debate has always been rife at EU level
between operators, regulators, enforcement agencies and the EU institutions about what
constitutes a legal or licenced operator. Some believe the Internal Market applies to the extent that a licence in any EU Member State allows you to operate freely within the EU. Others argue that you need a licence for the national jurisdiction to be able to target customers therein. These are just a few of the perceptions. In 2010, the Spanish Presidency’s report on gambling and betting acknowledged that there is no common definition for illegal gambling, in light of its appreciation for the subsidiarity principle for the gambling sector across the EU. Nonetheless, a common criterion is identified: “on-line gambling and betting should always be performed by operators with a licence granted by the competent national body”. This report is not legally binding but is an indicator of the political perception of what illegal gambling entails in general terms. Interesting is, how it reflects in the
development of tools by national bodies to tackle illegal gambling. These tools vary from IP blocking to payment blocking, to the creation of information tools such as white and black lists. Blacklists are particularly interesting as they can be used in a variety of ways. The Italian Regulator for gambling lists all the sites that are encountered to offer their services illegally, making it more of an information tool. This is similarly the case in the recently introduced blacklist in Slovakia. In Belgium, a black list has another role. Making the list takes a lot more audacity in the eyes of the regulator. The brevity makes it a more powerful PR tool as it focuses on naming and shaming individual operators. Of course, the effectiveness of any of the
tools can always be questioned, also in light of legal and judicial capacities that might be permissive or inhibitive of IP and payment blocking mechanisms. Other tools include proper advertisement and the provision of a legal offer to channel players away from illegal online and offline platforms. Therefore, earlier this year, the European Commission launched a tender for a study titled: “Evaluation of regulatory tools for enforcing online gambling rules and
channelling demand towards controlled offers”. The results of the study are expected next year. It will be interesting to see how the various individual tools and combinations thereof used by each Member State will be evaluated.
Gambling Reporting Standardisation
The European Committee for
Standardisation has decided to create a standard for online gambling. It is officially recognised by the EU and is in essence the European version of the International Organisation for Standardisation. The technical committee is called CEN/TC 456: “Reporting in Support of Online Gambling Supervision”. Seeded in the 2012 European Commission’s Communication on online gambling, it will be the second time CEN visits the sector in recent years. In 2011, it provided the platform for the contentious CEN Workshop Agreement on “Responsible Remote Gambling Measures”.
Commission Online Gambling Recommendation Re-visited In the last edition, I spoke to you about Belgium taking the European Commission to court over its “Recommendation on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online” as the Member State along with the support of Greece and Portugal saw the measure as eroding the subsidiarity principle (i.e. the ability to determine one’s own national regulation). As the hearing was on 26th June 2017, the General Court has announced its opinion for 26th September. The opinion is not a ruling but is followed in most cases by the Court’s final decision. If the court decides to take the Belgian view, it could have resounding effects on the “governance” of gambling at EU level, but for other sectors as well.
Greetings from Brussels.
SEPTEMBER 2017 37
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 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118
