Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its ruling concerning the preliminary referral sent by the Plenary of the Hellenic Council of State with regards to the application submitted by companies offering services of games of chance about installing betting agencies in Greece.

Once again, the Court reaffirmed its jurisprudence in accordance with which exclusive rights can be granted where overriding reasons in the public interest exist. These overriding reasons include consumer protection as well as the prevention of both fraud and incitement of citizens' to excessive spending on games of chance. The conditions set for granting exclusive rights are based on the arrangement actually reducing gambling opportunities and limiting activities in this area in a consistent and systematic manner and that the public authorities strictly inhibit the growth of gambling to the extent necessary in combating gambling related crime.

Τhe Court didn't pass any judgement on the case itself, in other words whether the gaming regulatory framework is compatible, or not, with the conditions as set forth by the case law. Instead, it referred the issue of evaluating national legislation to the Plenary of the Greek Council of State with a reminder that the Council should take overall regulatory conditions into consideration; particularly lay down the level, i.e. more or less strict control exercised by the state, the consistency of the restrictive policy practiced in gambling and the proportionality of the measures, into consideration.  

Τhe European Court also passed a judgment of an extremely importance as to whether the gaming market should be open up if the Greek Court judged that the national regulation is contrary to the European Union law.

As per the ruling “the introduction of free, undistorted competition in a traditional market, the presence of that kind of competition in the very specific market of games of chance, that is to say, between several operators authorised to run the same games of chance, is liable to have detrimental effects owing to the fact that those operators would be led to compete with each other in inventiveness in making what they offer more attractive and, in that way, increasing consumers' expenditure on gaming and the risks of their addiction”. Therefore, the State is not obliged to liberalise the gaming market, if it considers that the liberalization is not compatible with the level of the consumer protection and the preservation of order in the society.

Moreover, the European Court held that even if national law, in relation to the monopolization is held by the national court as not compatible with European law, the Member State is not obliged to liberalize the gaming market. Specifically, it held that “Under European Union law as it currently stands, Member States remain free to undertake reforms of existing monopolies in order to make them compatible with Treaty provisions, inter alia by making them subject to effective and strict controls by the public authorities.”

As misleading information already exists concerning the European Court's grounds of its decision and the ruling itself, OPAP S.A. notes that this ruling vindicates the main axes of the Greek State's policy and that the Greek legislation's compatibility with the directives of European jurisprudence will be conclusively determined by the Greek courts.

The Greek government is therefore allowed to continue its restrictive policy which is one of the strictest in Europe, with a view to ensuring social cohesion and preventing the country becoming a European gaming paradise, as some would like to envision it, without taking into account Greek society itself. 

OPAP S.A. will continue with its policy of strict control, social contribution and its participation in the country's economic recovery. The European Court's decision also veered in this direction and we believe that the competent Greek courts will follow this path also.

Peristeri, 24.01.2013

OPAP S.A.