In addition to the Dutch reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in the case of Ladbrokes (cf. German Gaming Law updated no. 106), the Raad van State, in its capacity as the highest administrative court of the Netherlands, has referred a case to Luxembourg (decision of 14 May 2008, file-no. 200700622/1). This reference has been filed with the ECJ as Case C-203/08. The referral is based on administrative proceedings between the world’s largest betting exchange Betfair (Sporting Exchange Ltd.) and the Dutch Minister of Justice.

The Netherland High Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), the highest Dutch court for civil- and penal cases referred a case regarding the cross-border offer of sports bets for preliminary ruling. The referral is based on proceedings between the private bookmaker Ladbrokes and the Dutch gambling monopoly operator De Lotto. In 2002 Ladbrokes was restricted from accepting sports bets form Dutch citizens. The High Court (Hoge Raad) referred three questions to the ECJ:

The barriers against the cross-border offering of sports betting and gambling erected by the EU (and EEA) Member States have been under strict scrutiny by the European Commission for several years. The Commission judges numerous national provisions to be in breach of Community law and has therefore already initiated infringement proceedings against several Member States, including Germany (two proceedings, one relating to the sports betting monopoly and one relating to the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling) and Austria.

After the Austrian regional court of Linz's reference for preliminary ruling regarding the monopoly on casinos other proceedings regarding the licensing procedure for casinos have just recently been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for preliminary ruling, this time from Greece (Case C-145/08 -- "Club Hotel Loutraki"). The reference for preliminary ruling by the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias involves the question whether Community procurement law...

After numerous decisions on sports betting the European Court of Justice may now deal with the admissibility of a casino monopoly. The Austrian County Court of Linz (Landesgericht Linz) recently referred several fundamental questions for preliminary ruling to the ECJ (Case no. C-64/08 - Engelmann). The ECJ's decision could well throw into disarray the current licensing system for casinos in Austria and could be of fundamental importance for other Member States as well. The County Court of Linz referred the following questions for preliminary ruling:

After the Gambelli decision at the end of 2003 and its follow-up decision Placanica of March 2007 another landmark decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the freedom to provide services with regard to sports betting will be pronounced at the beginning of next year. On 29 April 2008, the ECJ's Grand Chamber, composed of 13 judges, heard Case No. C-42/07, referred from Portugal last year (cf. German Gaming Law updated no. 79 for the questions referred for preliminary ruling).

Brussels (Reuters) - The European Commission is expected to step up legal action against the Netherlands and Greece over restrictions to competition in their gaming markets, a source with knowledge of the situation said on Monday. "They are expected to pursue the cases against Greece and the Netherlands for restrictions in sports betting services, barring any last-minute change of mind," the source said.

As already reported in German Gaming Law updated no. 93, the Administrative Court of Schleswig (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht) raised considerable doubts as to the conformity of the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) with EU law and referred a case regarding the state monopoly on sports betting and gambling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The 19 page reference for a preliminary ruling, including the four questions submitted to the ECJ, was recently published (decision of 30 January 2008, file no. 12 A 102/06).

The Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) of Schleswig – like the EU Commission – thinks that EU laws are being violated and has decided to refer questions relating to European law issues in the context of the new sports betting monopoly to the ECJ. The 30th day of the new year 2008 was, from the legal point of view, definitely anything but a good day for the advocates of the State Treaty on Gambling, which is only a few weeks old. This is because on Wednesday this week, the young Treaty was not only sharply attacked by the European Commission...

The Administrative Court of Schleswig (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Verwaltungsgericht) has raised serious doubts about the justification of the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and referred a dispute about the state monopoly regarding sports betting to the European Court of Justice (decision of 30 January 2008, file no. 12 A 102/06). Plaintiff in the main proceeding is a remote gaming operator, licensed in Gibraltar. The gaming operator which wants to offer its services cross-border also in the State of Schleswig-Holstein, filed an application.

In France, the Court of Appeal of Versailles has called into question the compatibility of the nation’s gaming legislation with European Union law and placed the burden of proof on authorities to justify that their regulatory framework is consistent, proportionate and justified. The Court’s ruling followed a request by Didier Dewyn, the former Chief Executive Officer for Mr Bookmaker, a gaming company licensed in Malta...

The Administrative Court of Giessen (Verwaltungsgericht Gießen) has reffered two more sports betting cases (interdiction orders against betting shops, tranferring bets to private bookmarks licensed in another EU member state) to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) according to Article 234 EC Treaty. Earlier this year, the court already reffered a similar case to the ECJ (Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis; Case C-316/07). The two new cases have been filed as: Avalon Service-Online-Dienste GmbH v Wetteraukreis (Case C-409/07) and Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel v Wetteraukreis (Case C-410/07).