Italian court rules in favour of Maltese gaming company

An Italian court has ordered that a Maltese-licensed remote gaming company be taken off the list of Internet gaming companies, access to which had been blocked by order of the Italian government.

Astrabet Limited was on the list of almost 800 Internet gaming companies that were hit by the new Italian Finance law. Under this law, widely regarded as a thinly disguised attempt to protect the Italian gaming monopoly, the Italian Ministry of Finance can order Internet service providers (ISPs) in Italy to block Internet gaming sites that do not have a concession to provide their services by the Italian gambling monopoly, the Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies (AAMS).

In handing down judgment, the Civil Tribunal of Rome ordered both the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the AAMS to ensure that the Website and domain of Astrabet Ltd are no longer blocked.

Astrabet's victory vindicates the stance taken by Malta's Lotteries and Gaming Authority (LGA), which for the past seven weeks has been advertising in prominent Italian newspapers and offering access through the LGA's Website to the Websites of Maltese-licensed operators which were being blocked by Italy.

This judgment comes in the wake of important developments on a broader scale, which have spelt serious setbacks for the practices adopted by European gambling monopolies.

On April 4, the European Commission decided to send official requests for information on national legislation restricting the supply of sport betting services to seven member states: Denmark. Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

This decision follows a number of complaints by operators supplying sport betting services, who feel that restrictive measures adopted by these member states are not compatible with Article 49 of the EC treaty, which guarantees the free movement of services.

The European Court of Justice has repeatedly stated that any restriction which seeks to protect general interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers, must be consistent and systematic in how they seek to limit betting activities.

A member state cannot invoke the need to restrict its citizens' access to betting services if at the same time it incites and encourages them to participate in state lotteries, games of chance or betting which benefits the state's finances.

The French government, although not included in the list of member states to whom an official request for information were sent, recently came under fire by the EU Commission during the hearing of three references made by Italian courts to the European Court of Justice.

The French government had pleaded that a member state can restrict betting activities and at the same time have a policy of controlled expansion of betting approved by the state. The EU Commission reiterated that this was illogical, given that consistency of approach is key to this matter.

At national level two recent judgments have continued to pile pressure on monopolies. In Germany, the federal constitutional court has ruled that the state gambling monopoly in its current form was clearly unconstitutional and fiscal reasons alone could not justify a monopolistic situation.

The German court went as far as giving an ultimatum to the state - to reconsider and amend the present law governing sports betting activities by the end of next year. The importance of this judgment is paramount, given that any ruling by the federal constitutional court has direct effect in all German states.

This judgment was preceded by another homogeneous judgment delivered by the Breda court in the Netherlands. Following the state's refusal to grant a casino licence to the Compagnie Financiere Regionale, BV, proceedings were instituted against the Netherlands' Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

In its landmark judgment the Breda court ruled that Dutch gaming legislation and policies were inconsistent with the guidelines established by the earlier Gambelli ruling by the European Court of Justice.

Put in context, this judgment seems to have also reflected the EU Commission's criticism to proposed amendments to the Dutch Gaming Act of 1964, whereby the Ministry of Justice envisioned granting Holland Casino a three-year licence to operate games of chance exclusively over the Internet.

As more gambling monopolies are being called to stand up and be counted, and face their day of reckoning, by justifying their discriminatory practices, ZEturf Ltd, the Maltese-licensed gaming company that was ordered by a French court to cease taking bets on French horse racing and ordered to pay a fine of almost €2 million, is continuing its fight for justice to be made.

The Groupement Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) have filed an application requesting the Maltese courts to enforce the first of two judgments. The First Hall of the Civil Court decreed that the foreign judgement is enforceable under European Regulation 44/2001; having in the process turned down an application by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority to intervene in the case.

Both ZEturf Ltd and the LGA have entered an appeal from the decree. When contacted, a spokes-man for ZEturf said that, although it is not the right time to comment on the ongoing proceedings, ZEturf were confident that the Maltese courts would see that justice be done and that ZEturf's right to offer its services and operate freely and without state hindrance in the European internal market in accordance with Maltese and EU laws, will be recognised and vindicated.

ZEturf operates from Malta in full compliance and within the parameters of a licence granted to it by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority under the provisions of the Remote Gaming Regulations 2004.