The adoption of the French Bill regarding the opening of the gaming market is likely to be postponed

The French bill regarding the opening of the gambling market has been now transmitted for scrutiny to the Parliament. The commission of finance is in charge of preparing the Deputies’ work. At this stage, it is likely that the parliamentarian debates and vote finally end by September 2009. The final implementation of the entire system (implementation regulation, distribution of licences etc) may be postponed accordingly (Mid 2010?). In the meanwhile, the European Commission has rendered its detailed opinion extending the still-stand period for one more month. During this period the French Government is supposed to justify the restrictions to the freedom to provide services as criticized by the European Commission.

On Thursday 5th of March 2009, Eric Woerth, the Budget Minister presented the draft bill concerning the opening of the remote gambling market in France.

On 25th of March 2009 the draft bill elaborated by the government was submitted to the Council of Ministers. Following to the Council of Ministers’ approval, the text was notified to the European Commission, launching the 3 months stand-by period in application of EU Directive 98/34 in the field of gambling. On the same day too, government draft bill was sent for discussion to the National Assembly. At this stage of the parliamentarian calendar, it is likely that the Parliament will resume the procedures of scrutiny, discussions and votes by the September.

This new gambling policy is meant to monitor the offer and the practice of gambling and to channel the demand in a system controlled by public powers in the name of public and social order.

A limited and regulated opening

The opening of the French market will be strictly monitored.

According to the article 5 of the draft bill, the opening will be limited to “online horse race betting, sport betting and games consisting of shared games which depend on skill”.

Thus, lotteries, virtual slot machines, “spread betting”, “betting exchange”, betting on virtual competition and casino games in which consumers play against the bank (roulette, blackjack, etc…) are excluded from the opening.

The creation of an Online Games Regulations Authority

An Online Games Regulations Authority (Autorité de Régulation des jeux en ligne: “the ARJEL”) will be specially created to take in charge the whole gambling policy and the promotion of reasonable game.

This authority will be in charge of:

* Monitoring compliance with the objectives of games’ policy accessible through internet;
* Proposing a cahier des charges (list of requirements established by the ARJEL) to the government for each type of licence (see below);
* Preparing the licence request files for online gaming operators and attributing the licences;
* Auditing for compliance by operators with legislative and regulatory measures and clauses of the reference terms of which they are subject to.

Carrying out surveillance of online operations and participating in the fight against illegal game sites and against fraud;
* Enacting rules regarding the audit of technical and financial data for each online game or bet;
* Determining where appropriate, the technical parameters of online games within the framework of rules set by the decrees;
* Proposing legislative and regulatory modifications to the government.

Once the bill is enacted, the ARJEL will need another few months to be efficient and begin to grant licenses. For the times being, the competent authority has unofficially been appointed and started his mission.

Operators have to comply with strict conditions to get a license

The license will only be granted to online operators complying with the regulations contained in the cahier des charges (specifications).

It sets general requirements for all operators and specific clauses according to each type of licenses, namely sports betting, horse race betting or circle games (such as poker or baccarat).

For instance, all operators will be required to provide information and guarantees concerning their identification, their experience in the gambling industry, the measures they will implement to fight against player’s addiction and prevent minors from playing (see below).

Licenses will only be offered to operators established in a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Community.

Operators will have to operate from an internet website accessible through a first level domain name with an “.fr” ending.

All data related to gambling activities, exchanged between players and operators and linked to the identification of gaming or betting events, must be available on a mirror server based in France and eventually provided through an operator representative in France.

The licence will be issued for a period of five years. It is renewable. It is not transferable. A specific agreement will be requested for each type of games operated by the licensee.

The draft bill establishes tax rates:

The tax rate will be calculated on the amount of the wagers: the total sums outlaid by players and punters. The winnings, invested by the latter in the form of new bets, will be equally taxed. The taxation amounts 8, 5% for sports betting, 15, 5% for horse racing betting, 2% for online poker.

The establishment of measures against addiction concerning consumers and minors’ protection:

In a preventive way, operators will have to insert apparent objective messages on the website about the interdiction to play for minors and the risks related to gambling activities.

Article 3 of the draft bill forbids to minors to play for money online.

The draft bill confers important obligations to gaming operators in the fight against addiction.

Articles 20 and 21 of the draft bill indicate that gaming operators have to control the age of the players at the time of the opening of the account.

Also, they have to check that the identity of the players corresponds to that of the holder of the bank card used on the site.

Finally, online service information to players will have to be set up.

To conclude, the government draft bill allows the ARJEL and the government to keep a substantial control over the gaming operators and operations. Considering the concern expressed by the Government regarding consumers’ protection, this text appears to put in place a reasonable system.

Draft bill compatibility with EU law

Additionally, it is noteworthy to underline that the European Commission rendered a detailed opinion regarding the French draft bill.

A detailed opinion attempts to prevent Members States from adopting a text, which contains barriers to the internal market, or to urge them to remove the restrictive provisions, thereby avoiding unnecessary legislative work and future EU infringement proceedings. Once a detailed opinion had been issued, the standstill period, during which the draft text must not be adopted, is extended by one month. If, after this time, the draft text is adopted without modification, the Commission can immediately commence an infringement procedure against the Member State’s newly adopted legislation.

Accordingly, the French Government can modify its draft bill by the 8 July or decide to ignore the EC recommendations and takes the risks of the launching of an infringement procedure.

Interestingly the European Commission questioned the French Government regarding the following issues:

* to which extend does the draft law putting in place a licensing regime in France take into consideration the licensing criteria set up by the other Member states for granting their license?;
* To which extend the limitation of the player return rate does effectively contributes to the fight against addiction?;
* To which extend the fiscal representative is necessary as it rather constitutes a barrier to freedom of establishment and of provision of services?;
* To which extend can the right granted to the sports events organizations be justified?

As a result, such a detailed opinion may postpone the true discussion at the Parliament. It is already unofficially evoked that the opening of the market could be postponed to June 2010.

Germany and the Inter-State Treaty

The Inter-State Treaty on Gambling and the implementation of the prohibition of gambling on the worldwide web – nothing is (im) possible. by Dr Wulf Hambach, Founding Partner and Susanna Münstermann, Senior Associate, Hambach & Hambach. Published in iGamingBusiness, issue May/June 2009.

The Inter-State Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) and the prohibition of online gambling aim, at least on paper, at steering the natural gaming urges of the population along well-ordered and supervised paths. That is why gambling supervisory authorities, access providers and banks are being faced with the question of whether the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling is the legal basis for “cutting off the communication and economic channels used” via blocking orders against access providers (ISP blocking) concerning (EU-licensed) online gambling offers or prohibition orders against banks (financial blocking).

But such a regulation is necessary in order to achieve a “court-proof solution”, as declared by the legal counsel for the German Lotto und Toto-Block, Dr Manfred Hecker, during a hearing before the state Parliament of North-Rhine Westphalia:

“Let us initially turn to a monopoly which is based on an irreproachable legal foundation. Such a monopoly, contrary to the present situation, is court-proof.

“An issue that comes up repeatedly is Internet gambling, which could also be prevented (particularly services by foreign providers, including those outside Europe) by cutting off the communication and economic channels used. This is because the firms based abroad need to communicate through the Internet and Internet service providers in order to make contact with the players.” (Unofficial translation, quote of the official minutes of the hearing, 15.3.2007)

It seems as if the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling provides the gambling supervisory authority with the power to prohibit banks from being involved in payments relating to illegal games of chance and access providers from cooperating regarding access to unauthorised offers of games of chance according to Section 9 Subsection 1, Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Is it possible to filter payments and websites? Who is liable for wrong decisions? May uninvolved third parties be obliged to act as deputies in order to monitor the legally disputed state monopoly? That’s reason enough to consult the experts.

Expert opinion
Under the patronage of the Verband der Deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V. (eco) (Association of German Internet Businesses), in cooperation with the law firm Hambach & Hambach, an experts’ conference was held on March 26, 2009, dealing with the legal and technical demands of blocking orders for the purpose of implementing the state gambling monopoly.

Prof. Michael Rotert, Chairman of the eco board, referred to a letter from the German Federal Government to the European Commission and said that the phrase stating that “ISPs and banks will accept this as justified on their own accord, and will support the German States in the implementation of their politics” has led to considerable irritation. He explained that the state gambling monopoly is questionable from his point of view. Private providers are excluded for reasons of addiction prevention, whilst the monopolists are permitted to advertise the high jackpot sums on state-run television networks during prime time viewing on a Saturday evening.

As announced by Prof. Rotert, the expert lecturers were able to explain why neither blocking orders against ISPs nor prohibition orders against banks issued by the gambling supervisory authorities can be used as a means to implement the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling:

* There is no statutory basis for blocking orders against ISPs. The relevant provision in the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling is not a statutory authorisation.
* From the technical point of view, blocking of Internet sites is simply impossible. Legal and attractive online gambling offers provide the best level of protection.
* Blocking of online gambling offers involves considerable liability risks, as it is difficult to draw the line between illegal offers and legal online games of chance, legal games of skill and legal entertainment games and also because the state monopoly most probably is unconstitutional and contrary to European law.
* Prohibition orders against banks based on the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling are also contrary to constitutional and European law.

Cause for regulation
Mr. Schaeffer (Chief Security Analyst, TÜV Rheinlander Secure iT GmbH) gave a pictorial description of the structure of the Internet and came to the conclusion that the possibilities of bypassing blockings and censorship are endless, as the very idea of the establishment of the Internet was for it to bypass blockings independently. Blockings will only contribute to improved concealment of the networks. Online gambling should not be prohibited, but rather regulated. Providing attractive up-to-date offers which are continuously refined, will intercept the users and prevent their migration to illegal offers.

Attorney at law Dr. Hambach (Founding Partner, Hambach & Hambach Law Firm) explained from the point of view of gambling law why there are substantial liability risks involved with the blockings. In addition to the pending infringement proceedings and preliminary proceedings against the German gambling monopoly before the European Court of Justice – which is why licensed EU providers should not be blocked – other questions regarding differentiation remain difficult. Therefore, horse betting, games of skill and games with low stakes must not be blocked on the Internet, nor must mere entertainment games. The inconsistent German gambling law should be harmonised on the Federal level, and a gambling supervisory authority should be established which monitors the offers by private providers on the Internet.

Prof. Dr. Ohler (University of Jena, Chair for Public Law, European Law, Public International Law and International Commercial Law) gave a lecture on the topic “Capping of the flow of funds – monitoring by order of the gambling supervisory authorities”, and expressed substantial doubts based on constitutional and European law. Banks as uninvolved third parties may only be called upon to provide support in cases of the so-called “polizeilicher Notstand” (public emergency). From Prof. Dr. Ohler‘s point of view, the combat of illegal gambling cannot suffice to justify such public emergency. Also, the fact that the criteria for an automated filtering have not been defined, the lack of regulations in the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling in comparison with the act on money laundering, and concerns based on European law make it clear that the statutory regulation is inadequate.

Finally, it appears that the regulations of the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling were sewn in a great hurry and were solely governed by the political will. The evaluation and revision of its “big brother” in the USA, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), clearly shows the weakness of these kinds of regulations. Instead of an efficient and automatic filtering, nothing more than a “know your customer” questionnaire remains due to the necessary differentiation between land based and online, licensed and illegal gambling offers.

Matter of opinion
Are the conclusions of the experts correct? Can banks and access providers rely upon the fact that all legal and technical concerns are taken into consideration?

The Bavarian Referent for gambling and father of the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling, Dr. Thomas Gößl, attended the Munich Gaming Conference on April 1, 2009, dealing with “Games on the Internet: Raffle, Gamble, Online Game –Challenges for the Protection of Minors”.

Dr. Gößl expressed the wish that one may accept the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling and the stop sign on the Internet, so that finally, calm is restored in the German gambling market. In his opinion, there are no reasonable doubts with regard to constitutional or European law. Other participants of this panel discussion, like Mrs Sabine Frank (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter/Organisation for the voluntary self-control of the Internet), pointed out that several European Court of Justice decisions, dealing with the German sportsbetting monopoly, are still expected. Mr Prof. Schneider (ZAK (Commission for admittance and surveillance – commissioner for program and advertisement, Düsseldorf) formed the important view that a prohibition that cannot be enforced, leads to a loss of credibility.

Therefore, consumer restrictions cannot be placed on the Internet and blocking orders against some providers will not prevent the German consumer from gambling online. For the protection of consumers and minors one has to reproach the legislator with the total loss of a state controlled offer. It is unavoidable to reform the gambling law by creating a federal gambling law and a federal supervisory authority in order to steer the natural gaming urges of the population on the Internet along well-ordered and supervised paths.

Interview with Dr. Wulf Hambach: The licensing model is the best way for Europe

published on gamespectrum.bg, 2009-04-01

In your opinion, how should online gaming be regulated?

I think the licensing model is the best way for Europe. If we have 27 different licensing regimes there would be no problem for the offline world to regulate those 27 different jurisdictions but when it comes to online cross border and gaming, the best would be to have a licensing regime, which partially recognizes the existing licenses. So that’s the best way for taxation on one side and, on the other, the control body needs to be in the country where the license originates, for example Gibraltar, Malta.

Do you recognise any regulatory model for online gaming as a good one and what are its main features?

I think the UK model is most favourable but unfortunately the tax rate there is too high so that a lot of companies will not stay in the UK. However a very good thing is the UK still controls existing licenses by a white list approach, especially when it comes to advertising. So if an operator who comes from Alderney, for example wants to advertise in the UK, the UK regulator will look at the advertising restrictions and find out that Alderney is white listed, so the operator’s license shall be fully recognized and he is allowed to advertise. However the UK Gambling Commission and the Advertising department can still control advertising.

How can the player and the legitimate interests of the operators and the state be protected in online gaming?

Definitely by strong a strong legal framework and by taxation that is leading the fight against gaming addiction. On one hand the gaming taxation office collecting money has to be sure that there are enough funds allocated to projects for fighting gaming addiction. On the other hand, the operators need to be controlled with respect to fraud prevention. At the moment I think that existing EU jurisdictions and the fraud legislation standards are at a very high level. The other thing the operators should assure is that one player is not harming the others by manipulating software or using pots, poker rooms etc. in an Online Poker room for example. The gaming regulator should take care that the operators themselves implement enough measures to achieve enough protection.

How do you see the future of online gaming?

Right now there is always going be a struggle between the states for their interest into collecting money from the gaming sector. This interest will last for the next years also. Most of the European countries will offer a licensing regime, like Italy and Spain for example. This is the trend that cannot be stopped when we come to Internet gaming. The monopoly approach or total Internet gambling ban is not the future.

For further informations please see the website of gamespectrum.bg

Enforcement of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling in Germany – killer or a toothless tiger?

published in the Euroean Gaming Lawyer in association with InterGaming magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1, spring 2009 by attorney-at-law Dr Wulf Hambach (founding partner) and Susanna Münstermann (senior associate) of law firm Hambach & Hambach

Dr Wulf Hambach is a partner and cofounder of the law firm Hambach and Hambach Rechtsanwaelte, (www.timelaw.de), a specialised law boutique for advice on German and international law in the fields of telecommunications, IT, media and entertainment, with a special focus on gaming law. For several years Hambach has been a General Member of the International Masters of Gaming Law as well as member of the International Association of Gaming Advisors. Furthermore, he is co-founder of the European portal on gaming and gambling law www.gaminglaw.eu. In 2008 he was recommended as the number one in German gaming law by the independent ranking commentary Chambers and Partners. Recently he was named as Lawyer of the Year 2008 by the World Online Gambling Law Report, the leading sector publication. He can be reached at info@timelaw.de.

Susanna Münstermann studied law in Munich, specialising in European law and international public law. She gathered experience abroad in various places, including one year at the Università degli Studi di Verona, Italy. During her apprenticeship to the bar, she worked for a renowned law firm in Paris and for a lobby group in Brussels. Before joining Hambach and Hambach, she worked as legal adviser for the European Consumer Centre Germany and subsequently as project director for the eCommerce Contact Point Germany. Both these are located at the Franco-German consumer organisation Euro-Info-Verbraucher e.V. in Kehl, Germany, near Strasbourg, France. She specialises in media and entertainment law, information technology law and European and international private law.

Only a few days before the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag – GlüStV), with its total ban on internet gambling in Germany became effective, one of Germany´s leading internet security experts, Rolf vom Stein, put it in a nutshell.

He described the technical limits of internet censorship (keyword: ban on internet gambling) during an IT and banking expert panel in Cologne as follows: “The attempt to block the internet contradicts technical reality. The internet treats any form of censorship as an error and will find ways to bypass it.

“All established methods for the blocking of websites are complex and technically fragmentary. Also, blocking measures can be prevented or bypassed very easily by new technical developments (Web 2.0), through simple modifications by the providers or sometimes even through unaware steps taken by the users.”

However, from January 1, 2008, internet gambling offers are prohibited by law.

Consequently the German Federal Government’s statement in the infringement proceedings (No. 2007/4866) against the ITG dated May 20, 2008 (par. 64) says with regard to gambling offers: “Germany assumes that the internet providers, the banks and the banks’ associations whose support will be necessary for the implementation of this prohibition will, of their own accord, accept the prohibition as justified and will support the German states in the implementation of
their policies.”

What has been said so far sounds indeed as if the GlüStV and its enforcement tools (ISP and financial blocking) are indeed a killer for the private e-gambling industry.

Now to the crucial question: do the legal and technical experts see these enforcement tools also as a killer for the private e-gambling industry or more as a toothless tiger?

Blocking orders or voluntary self commitment by access providers

From 2009 onwards, the intention is to strictly monitor the internet prohibition. Recent press releases show that foreign internet offers are now meant to be blocked by corresponding orders against the access providers. In some cases, access to the offers could already be blocked by taking action against the Admin-C or the registrar.

Apart from this demand the discussion about website blocking is dominated by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, as Mrs von der Leyen started her initiative “to block the data highway of child pornography” last November and hustles the German access providers into a “voluntary” self commitment. The access providers fear that this voluntary self commitment could give rise to a host of new demands – and with regard to the previous discussions with the gambling supervisory authorities they do have cause for concern.

Especially as neither the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs nor the gambling supervisory authorities have taken into account the existing expert opinions:

First of all, the Commission for the Protection of Minors in the Media (KJM) has commissioned two studies dealing with the feasibility of website blocking from the technical and legal side.

Expert opinions: legal and technical difficulties

Professor Sieber (legal expert) came to the following conclusion: “The present legal situation does not allow any blocking measures which would interfere with the secrecy of telecommunications as provided for in Art. 10 GG (German Constitution), section 88 TKG (German Telecommunications Act).”

Professor Pfitzmann examined the technical side for KJM and came to the result: “Summing up, one can state that blocking on the internet is feasible in principle. However, it is often connected with considerable (and usually unforeseeable) side-effects.”

Second, also the BVDW (Federal Association Digital Industry) published an expert opinion that comes to the conclusion that due to the legal requirements of the German Telecommunication Act there is no legal basis for voluntary website blocking by access providers.

This result is also – last but not least – supported by the scientific service of the German Bundestag, but Mrs von der Leyen remains unimpressed. In her opinion the signal effect is worth all costs and administrative efforts (for the access providers) and considering child pornography all legal or technical arguments are negligible. In fact, some critical arguments of the Ministry of the Interior seem to have been lost in the heat of the battle and were not adopted in the common position of the Ministries of the Interior, Economics and Family Affairs.

Access provider: neutral gateway to the internet or deputy sheriff?

In the middle of this political discussion the access providers are desperately referring to their neutral role as providers of the entrance to the internet without being responsible for the information transmitted. It remains to be seen if the gambling supervisory authorities will enforce GlüStV by blocking orders in case the initiative of Mrs von der Leyen grinds to a halt and the gambling supervisory authorities cannot profit from any “voluntary” agreement.

But assistance is rendered by the Regional Court of Hamburg. In a recent decision the Regional Court of Hamburg decided about the question whether an access provider can be obliged to block a website with content that is infringing a copyright (disturbance liability). The court elaborates on the complex of technical and legal problems of website blocking and states that even though the technical feasibility is questionable as every DNS blocking is easy to circumvent, it is – in the opinion of the court – only necessary that the access of the user is blocked on its path that the website blocking is disrupting.

However, the court comes to the conclusion that considering the low level of effectiveness (remarkably the judge tried himself to find information in the internet how to circumvent DNS blocking and succeeded in a few minutes) and considering the costs arising from this measure for the access provider, the claim was dismissed as being not reasonable and unfounded.

Conclusion

The internet prohibition of gambling raises many questions. First of all, a conflict of generations becomes apparent, as the internet prohibition is only justified by an unwarranted and diffuse fear of the medium. “The player’s anonymity and the lack of any kind of social control make it seem necessary, under the aspect of preventing gambling addiction, to question the sales channel ‘internet’, for the area beyond sports betting.”

Contrary to this, today’s generation is well aware of the fact that the average internet user is not anonymous and that addiction prevention can be realised much more effectively by the provider of internet games than, for instance, on location at a casino where an individual’s playing behaviour cannot be recorded in a traceable way. Furthermore, the implementation of the prohibition beyond Germany’s borders requires censorship measures which usually are applied by countries such as China and North Korea, but are alien to a democratic and free society.

State supervision of gambling takes the easy way out in this context: by delegating its task of enforcing an internet prohibition to the internet providers, without providing them with feasible and effective action proposals for the implementation. The risk of hitting legal internet services as well due to imprecise blocking measures, and of thus exposing oneself to incalculable risks of damage claims, is simultaneously passed on to the internet providers in an inadmissible way.

It is alarming that the political discussions driven by understandable (child pornography) or doubtful (protection of problem gamblers or fiscal income?) reasons simply ignore all concerns that are outlined by legal and technical experts.

The toothless tiger is trying to threaten banks, access providers and the e-gambling industry. Once the blocking orders are issued and the legality is examined in court the toothless tiger will realise its weakness.

Interview with John Eriksson, Widman & Hannes Snellman Ab – Assessing proposed changes in Finland

In January this year, the Finnish state prosecutor – Christer Lundström – gave his decision during the pre-investigation phase against PAF and its representatives.

The Finnish state prosecutor deemed PAF’s Internet gaming operations illegal but decided not to prosecute and waived the charges.

According to the State prosecutor, PAF’s activities were illegal due to the fact that PAF’s gaming site had been translated into Finnish and acknowledged that PAF, in different ways, targeted the Finnish market.

One of the signals that state prosecutors gives to the Finnish gaming market, by waiving the charges against PAF and its representatives, is that the Finnish authorities are waiting for the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act to come into force, says John Eriksson, an associate lawyer at the law firm Widman & Hannes Snellman Ab.

Of late, Finland has been in news for debating a countrywide ban on gambling marketing.

In order to know more, Bulletbusiness.com spoke to Eriksson about the current issues. Excerpts:

Could you summarise major developments in your jurisdiction of late as far as online gambling is concerned? How do you foresee online gambling sector opening up?

Considering the recent media occurrences in Finland , it can be concluded that companies in the Finnish media sector believe that – after the proposed amendments of the Finnish Lotteries Act come into force – all advertisement of gaming services has to stop and all foreign newspapers and magazines which include advertisement of gaming services can no longer be sold in Finland.

MTV Oy – one of the biggest multi-media/TV groups in Finland – has already cancelled advertising and other cooperation agreements with gaming providers.

With regard to the pending proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act and the new government report, containing proposals for further strengthening of the gaming monopoly in Finland, it can be concluded that the Finnish gaming system will not open up in the near future.

Can you provide an insight into the proposed changes under the Finnish Lotteries Act and how would this strengthen the Finnish state controlled gaming monopoly and at the same would result in further restrictions of the free movement of services within the Community?

By expanding the definition of marketing in section 4 of the proposed Lotteries Act to include “indirect advertising” and other marketing measures, the Government is also expanding the prohibition in section 62 of the Lotteries Act against marketing and organising gaming services without a licence. These proposed changes also apply on marketing and organising online gaming services.

By also introducing stricter penalties for lottery offences, the Finnish authorities create a more effective system for keeping online gaming operators outside the Finnish market.

Therefore, the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act strengthen the Finnish state controlled gaming monopoly and results in further restrictions of the free movement of services within the Community.

Considering the motives given in the proposition and the fact that the definition of marketing has been expanded, one can make the assumption that the amendment of the prohibition in section 62 of the Lotteries Act will result in that the Finnish authorities – after the proposed changes come into force – will take further actions against media and gaming providers that advertise and/or organise gaming services without a licence for the Finnish market.

It has been stated that one of the reasons behind why the state prosecutor gave his decision in January 2009 was that the Finnish Office of the Chancellor of Justice gave him an ultimatum to end the pre-investigations, which had been pending for two years, before February 2009. How do you expect the stance of the authorities as far as creation of a level playing field for all private players including both within Finland and outside Finland is concerned?

At the moment, there are no plans in Finland to allow any gaming operators established outside Finland to provide any gaming services in the Finnish market.

But after the proposed changes come into force, it will still be legal for any Finnish citizen to play gaming services provided by gaming operators established outside Finland.

You have mentioned that despite the proposed prohibition against marketing of games connected with special risks for gambling problems, such as casino games, the Government gambling associations may continue to expose their brands and addresses to their Internet gambling sites, for instance by offering sponsorship, even after the changes come into force. This demonstrates the inconsistency of the Finnish gambling regulation. Can you expand on the current situation as far as advertising and promotion of online gambling brands in Finland is concerned?

Until now, many online gaming providers advertised their services in Finnish TV-channels aired outside Finland. But due to the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act many multi-media/TV groups in Finland have cancelled advertising and other cooperation agreements with gaming providers.

However, the Government gaming associations in Finland still conduct extensive and aggressive marketing measures of their gambling services yearly. Even though Veikkaus Oy has been criticised by the Commission, the company keeps strengthening its brand by sponsoring and advertising at sales points and sports venues etc.

How has European Commission’s responded to the proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act? What are your expectations going forward?

Hopefully, the European Commission will follow up the submission of comments regarding the proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act – submitted to the Finnish Government on 2 February 2009 – with a reasoned opinion.