The legal basis of the Dutch gaming policy can be found in the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act 1964 (hereinafter: “Gaming Act”). The Gaming Act stipulates that offering games of chance or promoting games of chance without a licence is prohibited. The Gaming Act includes an enumeration of the specific games for which a licence can be granted. The only types of licence available are those expressly stated in the Gaming Act and currently does not include remote gambling licences.

Die Rechtsgrundlage der niederländischen Glücksspielregelungen findet sich im Niederländischen Wett- und Glücksspielgesetz von 1964 (nachfolgend: “Glücksspielgesetz”). Das Glücksspielgesetz verbietet das Anbieten von Glücksspielen bzw. die Werbung für Glücksspiele ohne Genehmigung. Das Glücksspielgesetz enthält eine Aufzählung der Spiele, für die eine Genehmigung erteilt werden kann.

As well as creating a new temporary exclusive licence for state-owned operator Holland Casino, a proposed Online Gaming Act also suggested that the Ministry of Justice is to target financial institutions dealing with unlicensed remote gambling operators. Justin Franssen and Aernout Kraaijeveld, of Van Mens & Wisselink, explain how although the Ministry's initial proposals have been watered down, the proposed Act still fails to justify its restriction on the freedom to provide services. In the political debate on the proposed Online Gaming Act, which creates a new exclusive temporary licence for remote gaming for Dutch state-owned casino monopolist Holland Casino, the enforcement of the prohibition of remote gaming is brought into focus.

On 20 September 2006, the Parliament voted for a temporary amendment to the Gaming Act of 1964, which grants an exclusive license to Holland Casino to offer remote gaming. Revenue earned on this new monopoly will be entirely for the benefit of the national treasury. The law can only be obstructed as a last resort by the First Chamber. Will the First Chamber be influenced by the severe critique from the Council of State and the European Commission on the law? A preparatory hearing at the First Chamber is scheduled for 7 November 2006. So what exactly are the critical comments from the Council of State and the European Commission?

State casino operator Holland Casino - in a joint effort with the city of Amsterdam and Rotterdam - sued the national government for not allowing a second Holland Casino facility to be located in the cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam. On 16 June 2006 the Administrative Court of Rotterdam rendered a negative ruling for Holland Casino and the cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The parties now have the option to appeal this matter before the "Afdeling Rechtspraak Raad van State", (Council of State) which is the highest instance court in Administrative law matters.

In a main proceedings judgement of 2 December 2005 the Administrative Court of Breda rendered a landmark post-Gambelli judgement in the proceedings between the Compagnie Financière Régionale B.V. (hereinafter : "CFR") against The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (hereinafter: "the State"). The decision of the Breda Court can be qualified as no less than a historic victory for the supporters of the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Rome, notably articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty. After various Dutch interlocutory Courts and one main proceedings Court found the Dutch gaming legislation and policies to be compliant with the so-called Gambelli criteria in several crossborder internet gambling cases, the Breda Court ruled that the State monopoly on (casino) gambling is not effective and there is no specific evidence as to substantiate that the restrictive casino legislation is coherent and consistent.

Europäische Kommission lässt erkennen, das es den vorgeschlagene Entwurf zum holländischen Internet gaming Monopol für unverhältnismäßig hält. Entscheidung vom 02.12.2005 CFR gegen den holländischen Staat. Nach der Hauptverhandlung vom 2.12.2005 traf das Verwaltungsgericht von Breda eine grundlegende Post-Gambelli-Entscheidung in dem strittigen Verfahren zwischen der Compagnie Financière Régionale B.V. (nachfolgend: „CFR“) und dem Justizministerium sowie dem Wirtschaftsministerium der Niederlande (nachfolgend: „Staat“).

Justin Franssen, a former casino dealer, studied law and continental philosophy at the universities of Leuven (B), Maastricht and Amsterdam. He works at Van Mens & Wisselink attorneys in Amsterdam where his practise is focussed on gaming and gambling related issues.

Justin Franssen hat früher als Croupier gearbeitet, studierte Rechtswissenschaften und Philosophie an der Universitäten von Leuven (B), Maastricht und Amsterdam. Er arbeitet bei Van Mens & Wisselink, Rechtsanwälte in Amsterdam, wo er sich auf Glücksspielrecht spezialisiert hat.