Brussels, 01/12/2008 (Agence Europe) - At the Competitiveness Council on Monday 1 December, Malta and the United Kingdom made a joint declaration opposing continued discussions at the Council on the legal framework and policy for gaming and gambling in the EU (EUROPE 9790). They believe that the work of the Council started by the French presidency is pointless and that improvements to standards in this sector could be obtained by the European Council work as guardian of the treaties. The two Member States referred to the infringement procedures begun against around ten Member States and which for some of them, have been blocked at a preliminary stage at the European Court of Justice.
The United Kingdom, whose gaming and gambling sector is open to competition, and Malta, which is a tax haven for several European operators, believe that the report drawn up by the French presidency does not reflect the opinions of all Member States sufficiently. They are concerned about ”certain key elements” in this report which could be misunderstood or “outside the competencies of initiative” but they did not say which. They highlighted the need to ensure that national restrictions on gaming are “objectively justified, proportionate and non-discriminatory”. They illustrate the potential represented by more open but regulated markets, as well as the efforts by operators to standardize their activities, particularly in the realm of social responsibility.
The focus is now on the future Czech presidency. Initially, not very inclined toward continuing the work, the Czech delegation may have been convinced by the French presidency of the need to organize in the first half of 2009, at least one expert level meeting, explained one European source. Hervé Novelli explained at the end of the meeting that, “we decided to continue work at the Council to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market”.
In a press release, the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) underlined that the presidency report does not necessarily reflect the point of view of the different Member States because it has not been submitted to any formal approval by the Council. (M.B./trans/rh)