Further Relevant Provisions for EU Gambling Law

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


This chapter examines to which extent other provisions, apart from the law on fundamental freedoms, could be applicable to gambling issues. In relation to primary law, this regards in the first place the competition and state aid provisions. Certain constellations of gambling monopolies remind of ‘revenue-producing monopolies’ in the sense of Article 106(2) TFEU, and favourable tax regimes towards domestic gambling operators can trigger the application of the state aid rules. The relevance of EU fundamental rights is examined in a separate chapter.

The EU’s classic approach to reducing barriers to trade consists in the harmonisation of national laws through directives. To date, however, the EU legislator has not passed a directive that aims to facilitate cross-border gambling services. The chapter nevertheless discusses a number of directives, which either apply to gambling issues or (partly) exclude gambling services from their scope of application.

Inter alia, the chapter deals with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. It defines commercial standards that can be of relevance in relation to responsible gambling advertising, in particular when aimed towards adolescents who are one of the population groups that are particularly vulnerable to disordered gambling.

Gambling services were excluded from the scope of the Services Directive. The chapter notes that this may have produced undesirable results both for Member States and consumers. It is not without irony that the European Commission with its Green Paper process has pursued a similar road as initially foreseen for gambling services in the draft services directive.


Money Laundering Advocate General Online Gambling Data Protection Directive Unfair Commercial Practice Directive 
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.


  1. Ennuschat, J. (2008). Zur gemeinschafts- und verfassungrechtlichen Zulässigkeit eines staatlichen Monopolangebotes für Online-Glücksspiele. In J. Ennuschat (Ed.), Aktuelle Probleme des Rechts der Glücksspiele – Vier Rechtsgutachten. Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen.Google Scholar
  2. Baudenbacher, C., & Bremer, F. (2010). European state aid and merger control in the financial crisis – From negative to positive integration. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 1(4), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Koenig, C. (2007a). Verspielen die Mitgliedstaaten ihr gemeinschaftsrechtliches Monopolglück? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 18(2), 33–34.Google Scholar
  4. Stein, T. (1993). Glücksspiel im europäischen Binnenmarkt: Kein “Markt” wie jeder andere. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft, 39(10), 838–845.Google Scholar
  5. Baudenbacher, C. (1997). A brief guide to European state aid law (European Business Law and Practice Series, Vol. 13). The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  6. Hailbronner, K., & Jochum, G. (2006). Europarecht II: Binnenmarkt und Grundfreiheiten. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Littler, A. (2011). Member states versus the European Union – The regulation of gambling. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Vlaemminck, P. & Hubert, A. (2009, June 15–16). Is there room for a comprehensive EU gambling services policy? Paper presented at ERA gambling conference, Prague.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