National rules restricting the provision of sports betting must pursue their objectives consistently and systematically to be in conformity with EU law. This is the opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot in a betting case involving Winner Wetten (C-409/06) before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Rules adopted by North Rhine-Westphalia that justify the organisation of a sports betting monopoly for reasons of preventing addiction to gambling are incapable of protecting consumers and are therefore incompatible with European Union law, concludes Bot.
The case: Winner Wetten GmbH, established in Germany, operated commercial premises in Bergheim (North Rhine-Westphalia), where it conducted bookmaker sports betting activities on behalf of a company established, registered and licensed in Malta. In a decree adopted on 28 June 2005, the mayor of the city of Bergheim prohibited Winner Wetten from operating sports betting activities because the organiser had not been authorised by the public authorities and advised it that failure to abide by the ban would result in the shutdown of its premises.
Winner Wetten lodged a complaint with the competent administrative services, which was rejected. It then brought an action against the decree and the administrative decision before the Cologne administrative court. The Court in Cologne asked whether governments are allowed to continue to apply for a transitional period gaming legislation that is not compatible with the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services provisions in the EU Treaty. The Cologne court considered North Rhine-Westphalia´s law on sports betting in force in 2006 to be inconsistent with the freedom to provide services as interpreted in the Gambelli ruling.
Bot clarifies that there are no legal arguments to allow for an exception to the direct application of the Treaty to the gaming and betting sector. In addition, he confirms that it is not in the interest of consumers to maintain non EU compliant legislation that does not offer consistent and systematic protection and points out that, under the principle of pre-eminence, the national court must give precedence to EU law.
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) welcomes this opinion. Secretary General Sigrid Ligné comments: “This opinion is crucial for developments in Germany. The Advocate General has made clear that EU law prevails and that unjustified restrictions are not admissible even for a transitional period. Today’s opinion will further fuel the current political debate on online gaming in Germany.” In addition, Bot explained that the court will also be handing down a judgement that concerns conformity with EU law of the sports betting rules applied in Baden-Wurttemberg and Hesse, which are similar to the rules challenged in this case.
A date for the ruling of the CJEU has not yet been set.