European Court of Justice's Judgement in the Case of Dickinger and Omer.

In September 2011 the European Court of Justice gave its reading in the case of Jochen Dickinger and Franz Omer, the founders of the online betting website bet-at-home.com.

The Court stated that a monopoly on games of chance can be justified "by overriding resons in the public interest, such as the objective of ensuring a particularly high level of consumer protection."

The European Court also provided the Austrian Court that had referred the case to it, with some guidance, as to how best to assess the proportionality of those measures that were being pursued in the public interest.

The Court said that where the holder of the monopoly is allowed to pursue an expansionist policy, it must be clearly shown that said policy can be shown to be reducing fraud and crime (presumably through the monopolist winning market share from unlicenced websites...). As regarding advertising, the Court said that only advertisng that was moderate and stricitly "limited to what was necessary to channel consumers towards controlled gaming networks" was permissable.

Finally, the Court looked at whether the Austrian authorities must take into account the merit of licencing in other jurisdictions (in this case Malta). The Court said that in that there was no harmoniastion at European level in the area of games of chance, there was accordingly "no duty of mutual recognition of authorisations issued by other Member states." Moreover the Court said that; "A member state may legitimately wish to monitor an economic activity which is carried on its territory, and that would be impossible if it had to rely on checks made by the authorities of another Member State using regulatory systems outside its control.

Perhaps, most importantly of all, the Court noted that in the area of games of chance, "Member States have a wide discretion in relation to the objectives they wish to pursue and the level of protection they seek."

As we head into 2012, it is fair to say that the walled gardens that comprise the European betting market remain relatively undisturbed. And in those situations, where one or two bricks have been removed from the wall, rstrictive measures, such as harsh taxation regimes, have ensured that the incumbent monopoly suppliers have remained very well protected vis a vis new market entrants.

To cite this article: "The European Court of Justice's ruling in the case of Dickinger and Omer: An Analysis." (Author: Niall O'Connor, Maidenhead, Berkshire: Published on Bettingmarket.com 2012 underlicence. All Rights Reserved.)