Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Jurisdiction Division of the Council of chance were offered online (poker, There is no European or other
of State (the highest administrative casino games and slot machines), was harmonisation of rules for games of
judge of the Netherlands), if a regulator accessible in the Netherlands from a chance. Providers of online games
applies a certain enforcement or Dutch IP address and iDeal (the Dutch of chance will be aware of this and
prioritisation policy, the supervisor standard for the performance of internet undoubtedly investigate in which
must comply with this policy in line payments) as a means of payment. In country they may or may not offer
with the principle of equality. addition, the Dutch flag was shown online games of chance according to
on the ‘top winners’ scoreboard and the respective jurisdiction’s rules.
In doing so, the KSA initially focuses the Netherlands could be selected as
on companies that (partly) target the a country in the drop-down menu at Compliance with EU law
Dutch market and Dutch consumers registration. An official of the KSA could Bet-at-home argued that the Act and
actively. In view of the limited capacity easily create account on the website on Dutch gaming policy is not consistent and
of the KSA, a prioritisation policy has an address in the Netherlands. In view is in conflict with EU law. The argument
been drawn up, which stipulates that of the findings made, the KSA concluded that the prohibition in Article 1 of the Act
the initial action to be taken, is against that Bet-at-home has given the Dutch and the policy based on it, constitutes
providers that meet one or more of public the opportunity to participate an unjustified infringement of European
the following prioritisation criteria: in online games of chance. According law, was not unsuccessful. In its ruling
to the law, Bet-at-home was invited to of 22 February 2017, the Administrative
• the website on which the game of give their views on administrative fine Law Division of the Council of State (‘the
chance is played ends on .nl; they were facing, during a hearing. Division’) determined that, with reference
• the website can be consulted to the CJEU decision in Case C-94/14,
in the Dutch language; and Considerations this prohibition aims to prevent gambling
• advertising is done via radio, During the hearing, Bet-at-home addiction and combat crime. These
television or in printed media and the KSA submitted several objectives are pursued as overriding
aimed at the Dutch market. arguments, some of which are reasons in the general public interest, on
addressed in more detail below. the basis of which restrictions on the free
A large number of (international) movement of services may be justified. The
providers of games of chance online, No license granted in the Netherlands Division ruled that it cannot be held that the
including Bet-at-home, have been According to the KSA, the absence KSA policy is incoherent and not systematic
informed about the prioritisation policy of a Dutch license cannot, contrary to and that the existing restrictions, which
of the KSA. The KSA has subsequently Bet-at-home’s stance, be compensated emerge due to the application of the
advised providers of online games of by a permit elsewhere or by regulations ban on the online provision of games
chance that are not in possession of a from European directives. The fact of chance, are not disproportionate.
license, to take care of an IP country that Bet-at-home has a permit in Article 1 of the Act is therefore not in
blockade or another measure as a result Malta is irrelevant, according to the conflict with the provisions of EU law.
of which the offer is no longer accessible KSA. Further, it is also irrelevant to
to the Dutch market. Only in this way can consider in these circumstances which Special position for Bet-at-home?
enforcement measures be prevented. supervision Bet-at-home in Malta is The Board notes that Bet-at-home had
possibly subject. In the present case, argued that there is a special position
Reason for the investigation the activities of Bet-at-home are on the of Bet-at-home on the grounds of
Between July 2017 and October 2017, Dutch market and the KSA is exclusively previous correspondence, participation
Bet-at-home was conducting a service competent, not the authority of Malta. in a roundtable discussion and an
in which games of chance were made interest report in the context of the KSA.
available online to Dutch consumers. In its judgment of 24 February 2012, the The response was that a letter in the
The KSA, who had previously highlighted Dutch Supreme Court considered the framework of the prioritisation policy,
to Bet-at-home both in 2012 and 2014, following. From the Court of Justice of participation in thematic meetings nor
their enforcement policy regarding the the European Union’s (‘CJEU’) reply to an interest report, leads or can lead,
provision of games of chance online, had the question referred by the Supreme to a special position in which one is
warned the provider that it would keep an Court, it appears that a Member State free from enforcement action, or has a
eye on the recruitment and advertising may take the view that the mere fact right to a special approach in case of
activities of their online platforms. that an economic operator legally violation or prioritising enforcement.
Following several tips from sources offers games of chance via the internet The KSA therefore decided to impose a
relating to Bet-at-home in May 2017, the in another Member State, does not fine against the online game provider.
KSA ordered a further investigation. This sufficiently ensure that the national
revealed, among other things, that the consumer is protected from the risk Bet-at-Home can appeal against the
company’s website, on which games of fraud, crime and addiction. KSA decision within six weeks.