Sverige kræver svar fra EU

Den svenske højesteret fastslog i 2004, at det dansk-lignende statslige spillemonopol Svenska Spel var fuldt i overenstemmelse med EUs retningslinier på området.

Fire år senere og en lang række retssager i flere af de andre lande med samme politik, herunder Danmark, Norge og Frankrig, har den svenske stat nu indset at spørgsmålet måske er mere komplekst end som så.

Det roder de nu bod på med fem udførlige spørgsmål sendt direkte til EUs juridisk ansvarlige, hvor statsmonopolet og dettes baggrund og betingelser udpensles for at opnå indsigt i om der er et egentligt eksistensgrundlag. Det skriver PokerNewsDaily.com.

Et af de primære argumenter er, ligesom i Danmark, de sociale forpligtelser et statsligt spillemonopol har. Det vi kender som Tipsmidlerne i Danmark.

For at undgå misforståelser følger en ikke-oversat version af de fem spørgsmål her:

1. Can discrimination by reason of nationality be passed under any circumstances on national gambling and lottery markets due to coercive consideration for the interest of the public?

2. If several reasons for the restrictive laws on the gambling and lottery market exist and one of them is the financing of social activities, can this be said to be an incidental beneficial consequence of the restrictive laws? If the answer is no, can the restrictive laws be said to be acceptable if the purpose to finance social activities cannot be said to be the main reason for the restrictive laws?

3. Can the state refer to coercive consideration for the interest of the public as a reason for restrictive gambling laws if state owned companies market games and lotteries whose income benefits the state and one of several purposes of this marketing is the financing of social activities? If the answer to this question is no, can the restrictive laws still be acceptable if financing of social activities is not deemed to be the main reason for the marketing?

4. Can a total ban on the marketing of gambling and lotteries organized in another member state by a company licensed and controlled by the authorities in that state be proportionate for the purpose of controlling and supervising gambling when there are no restrictions on the marketing of games and lotteries organized by the company licensed in the state practicing the restrictive laws? What is the answer to this question if the purpose of this arrangement is to limit gambling?

5. Has a gambling company licensed and controlled by the competent authorities in one country the right to market its products in other member countries, for instance by advertising in newspapers without first applying for permission to do so from the competent authorities in those countries? If the answer to this question is yes, does this mean that a member country’s regulation which is intended to penalize the promotion of participation in lotteries organized in foreign countries is an obstacle to the freedom of consideration of the public interest? Will the answer to the first question be different if the country in which the gambling company is licensed invokes the same consideration for the interest of the public as the country the company wants to market its gambling services in?


Et svar forventes tilbage indenfor en tidshorisont på 18-24 måneder, hvilket selvfølgelig er lang tid, men som Stefan Widmark fra det anvendte advokatfirma Mannheimer Swartling siger:

- Det vil tage tid, men fra det øjeblik spørgsmålene er stillet, vil debatten stige til et helt nyt niveau. Det er en meget vigtig udvikling at det svenske retssystem ikke har været for stolte til at modsige deres egen afgørelser.

Pokernyhederne følger udviklingen.