Advertisement

The Use of the Margin of Appreciation in EU Gambling Law

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

Abstract

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation has been key in the gambling case law. At international level, this doctrine was introduced by the European Court of Human Rights, which has defined the contours of the doctrine in a rich and diversified case law. The chapter examines the use of the margin of appreciation in relation to the concerns relevant in the area of gambling: health (addiction), crime and public morality. It aims to identify the principles and criteria that have steered the application of the doctrine in Strasbourg and to use these findings to analyse the gambling case law in Luxembourg. This exercise allows theorising the use of the margin of appreciation in a greater context.

An earlier chapter showed manifold commonalities between the judicial settings in Strasbourg and Luxembourg. The doctrine serves to address the universality-diversity dichotomy, and both judiciaries apply a proportionality review to counterbalance the discretion a priori granted. Naturally, the differences of the courts must also be taken into account.

The chapter concludes that the criteria in the Strasbourg Court’s practice do not support the wide discretion that the Court of Justice has granted in the area of gambling. While the Strasbourg Court does grant a wide margin of appreciation in relation to public morality concerns, this is only the case in situations where the cases exclusively regard morality issues. With regard to crime and health (addiction) concerns, wide discretion is only granted where this is justified by the factors urgency and severity of the danger.

Keywords

National Security National Authority Wide Margin National Court Advocate General 
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. Bartlett, P., Lewis, O., & Thorold, O. (2007). Mental disability and the European convention on human rights. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Greer, S. (1997). The exceptions to articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Files, Vol. 15). Council of Europe (Ed.). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Greer, S. C. (2000). The margin of appreciation: Interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Files, Vol. 17). Council of Europe (Ed.). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Macdonald, R. S. J. (1987). The margin of appreciation in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In A. Giuffrè (Ed.), Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification: Etudes en l’honneur de Roberto Ago (Vol. III). Instituto di Diritto Internationale e della Navigazione: Milan.Google Scholar
  5. del Moral, I. R. (2006). The increasingly marginal appreciation of the margin-of-appreciation doctrine. German Law Journal, 7(6), 611–624.Google Scholar
  6. Callewaert, J. (1998). Is there a margin of appreciation in the application of articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention? Human Rights Law Journal, 19(6), 6–9.Google Scholar
  7. Brems, E. (1996). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 56, 240–314.Google Scholar
  8. Yourow, H. C. (1996). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights jurisprudence. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Clayton, R., & Tomlinson, H. (2000). Law of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. van der Wal, G. (2005). Quality of care, patient safety, and the role of the patient. In J. K. M. Gevers, E. H. Hondius & J. H. Hubben (Eds.), Health law, human rights and the biomedicine convention: Essays in honour of Henriette Roscam Abbing. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Hubben, J. H. (2005). Decisions on Competency and Professional Standards. In J. K. M. Gevers, E. H. Hondius & J. H. Hubben (Eds.), Health law, human rights and the biomedicine convention: Essays in honour of Henriette Roscam Abbing. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Kaering-Joulin, R. (1992). Public morals. In M. Delmas-Marty (Ed.), The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Thompson, A. (1994). International protection of women’s rights: An analysis of Open Door Counselling Ltd. and Dublin Well Women Centre v. Ireland. Boston University International Law Journal, 12(2), 371–406.Google Scholar
  14. Gasser, U. (2002). Kausalität und Zurechnung von Information als Rechtsproblem. Doctoral thesis submitted at the University of St.Gallen. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  15. Hottelier, M., Mock, H., & Puéchavy, M. (2011). La Suisse devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (2nd ed.). Geneva/Zurich/Basel: Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA.Google Scholar
  16. Baudenbacher, C. (2008c). Zur Auslegung des EWR-Rechts durch den EFTA-Gerichtshof. In G. Müller, E. Osterloh & T. Stein (Eds.), Festschrift für Günter Hirsch zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 27–50). Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  17. Sacerdoti, G. (2008). Methods of interpretation by the Appellate Body of the WTO. In C. Baudenbacher & E. Busek (Eds.), The role of international courts (pp. 175–183). Stuttgart: German Law Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Tridimas, T. (1999). Proportionality in community law: Searching for the appropriate standard of scrutiny. In E. Ellis (Ed.), The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe (pp. 65–84). Oxford: Hart Publisher.Google Scholar
  19. Do, T. U., & Hatzopoulos, V. (2006). The case law of the ECJ concerning the free provision of services: 2000–2005. Common Market Law Review, 43(4), 923–991.Google Scholar
  20. Becker, T., & Dittmann, A. (2008). Gefährdungspotentiale von Glücksspielen und regulatorischer Spielraum des Gesetzgebers. In J. Ennuschat (Ed.), Aktuelle Probleme des Rechts der Glücksspiele – Vier Rechtsgutachten (pp. 113–151). Munich: Verlag Franz Vahlen.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