Advertisement

Excursus: Precautionary Principle in EU Gambling Law

  • Simon Planzer
Chapter
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 1)

Abstract

Gambling activities involve risks relating to addiction and crime. The precautionary principle is a prominent legal instrument in taking preventive approaches towards risks. This chapter provides an excursus on the potential applicability of the precautionary principle in European gambling law. The notion, genesis and scope of the precautionary principle in European law are presented. While the fields of application of this principle have traditionally included environment and foodstuffs, there is no cogent reason to a priori exclude its application in other fields.

It is then examined whether the precautionary principle is suitable to be applied in the gambling jurisprudence. The principle’s rationale and criteria are presented and applied to the gambling-related risk setting. The analysis concludes that the principle is not well-suited to address gambling related health risks.

The chapter identifies a certain irony that accompanies the gambling jurisprudence. The criteria of the precautionary principle, which involves a wide margin of appreciation for Member States, heavily emphasise the role of science. A comprehensive evaluation of the risk to health must be performed based on the most recent scientific information and national measures must be based on the best available scientific knowledge at any given time. By contrast, the role of science and empirical evidence in relation to gambling addiction has been marginal in the Court’s jurisprudence on gambling. Finally, the chapter notes that a more substantial role of scientific research and evidence-based measures would not prevent courts from granting discretion under the label of ‘medical discretion’.

Keywords

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Precautionary Principle Advocate General Gambling Disorder Scientific Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. de Sadeleer, N. (2005). Environmental principles: From political slogans to legal rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baudenbacher, C. (2007a). The definition of the precautionary principle in European law: A product of judicial dialogue. In C. Baudenbacher & H. Bull (Eds.), European integration through interaction of legal regimes (pp. 1–31). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  3. Alemanno, A. (2001). Le principe de précaution en droit communautaire: stratégie de gestion des risques ou risque d’atteinte au marché intérieur? Revue du droit de l’Union européenne, (4), 917–953.Google Scholar
  4. Alemanno, A. (2007). The shaping of the precautionary principle by European Courts: From scientific uncertainty to legal certainty. In L. Cuocolo & L. Luparia (Eds.), Valori costituzionali e nuove politiche del diritto (pp. 11–24). Matelica: Halley.Google Scholar
  5. Bronckers, M. (2005). Exceptions to liberal trade in foodstuffs: The precautionary approach and collective preferences. In C. Baudenbacher, P. Tresselt & T. Orlygsson (Eds.), The EFTA Court ten years on (pp. 105–114). Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Villiger, M. (2009). Proportionality and the margin of appreciation: National standard harmonisation by international courts. In C. Baudenbacher & S. Planzer (Eds.), Dispute resolution (pp. 207–213). Stuttgart: German Law Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Alemanno, A. (2011b). The Philip Morris judgment: The EFTA Court enters the post-Keck debate with a precautionary twist. European Law Reporter, (9), 246–253.Google Scholar
  8. Alemanno, A. (2011a). The legality, rationale and science of tobacco display bans after the Philip Morris judgment. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2(4), 591–599.Google Scholar
  9. Vlaemminck, P. (2011). Is there a future for a comprehensive EU gambling services policy? In A. Litter, N. Hoekx, C. Fijnaut, et al. (Eds.), In the shadow of Luxembourg: EU and National Developments in the Regulation of Gambling (pp. 105–118). Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zander, J. (2010). The application of the precautionary principle in practice – Comparative dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baudenbacher, C. (2006). Sven Norberg and the European Economic Area. In M. Johansson, N. Wahl & U. Bernitz (Eds.), Liber Amicorum in honour of Sven Norberg – A European for all seasons (pp. 37–59). Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Planzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Lecturer in LawUniversity of St.Gallen HSGSt.GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations