GAMES OF CHANCE : COURT LOOKS INTO PROMOTION OF ONLINE GAMBLING.

The lotterilagen', the Swedish gambling law that bans the promotion in the country of lotteries organised outside Sweden and subjects such acts to criminal penalties, complies with Community law, according to Advocate-General Yves Bot, who announced his conclusions, on 23 February, in two joint cases(1). However, given that it penalises the promotion of lotteries organised in Sweden without a licence differently from lotteries organised outside Sweden, he suggests that the court rule that the legislation does not respect the principle of non-discrimination.

DISPUTE

These conclusions derive from a dispute between Otto Sjoberg and Anders Gerdin, editors-in-chief, against Aklagaren, a Swedish public ministry. Between November 2003 and August 2004, the editors published on the sports pages of their newspapers (the Expressen and Aftonbladet, respectively), aimed at the Swedish public, advertisements for lotteries offered on the websites of the companies Expekt, Unibet, Ladbrokes and Centrebet, established in Malta and the United Kingdom. They were each sentenced to 50 daily fines of SEK1,000 (approximately 100) for these acts, considered to infringe the Swedish law on betting. The Svea hovratt (Stockholm Court of Appeal), which must rule on the appeals brought by Sjoberg and Gerdin against their convictions, asked the Court of Justice whether the legislation on which the convictions are based and, more specifically, the provisions that fix the penalties applicable to promotion in Sweden of gaming organised outside that member state, comply with Community law.

JUSTIFIED BAN

Advocate-General Bot underlined, first of all, that the prohibition on promoting internet gaming offered by companies established in other member states aims to, and does, restrict Swedish consumers from taking part in these games.He considers that the lotterilagen' tends to ensure Swedish consumers only play betting games within the approved national system and that while, for betting service providers established in other member states it constitutes a restriction to the freedom to provide services in Sweden, this can be regarded as justified by the objective of the fight against fraud and criminality and the protection of consumers against gaming addiction, in accordance with the court's case law. However, he specifies that, while a member state has the right to restrict gaming activities within its borders, the measures that it takes in this respect must not be...