Ο πρόεδρος της Εθνικής Επιτροπής Ελέγχου Παιγνίων (ΕΕΕΠ), κύριος Ευγένιος Γιαννακόπουλος, σε ερώτηση δημοσιογράφου στο σημερινό Gaming Money Conference για το αν η Ελλάδα θα συμμορφωθεί στις απαιτήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής στην ρύθμιση της αγοράς των τυχερών παιχνιδιών απάντησε καταφατικά.

Η Ευρώπη ζητάει διευκρινίσεις, τις οποίες καλείται η Ελλάδα να δώσει αφού με τις αποφάσεις της η ΕΕΕΠ αναμένεται να διαμορφώσει ένα μονοπωλιακό καθεστώς πέρα από το live στοίχημα και στο διαδίκτυο. Πιο συγκεκριμένα η Ελλάδα έχει 10 εβδομάδες περιθώριο για να απαντήσει. Αυτό σημαίνει πως η Ευρώπη περιμένει την επίσημη απάντηση της Ελλάδας για το πως θα χειριστεί το θέμα και στη συνέχεια θα αποφασίσει εκ νέου εαν συμφωνεί με το Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκαιο.

Πολλοί έσπευσαν να πουν πως θα δοθεί παράταση 10 εβδομάδων στις εταιρείες,  ωστόσο όλοι μας είμαστε ακόμα επιφυλακτικοί, ενώ ο Γιαννακόπουλος δεσμεύτηκε πως μέχρι το τέλος του 2012 θα έχει καταστρώσει τριετές σχέδιο για την ρύθμιση της αγοράς των τυχερών παιχνιδιών. Δηλαδή έχει περίπου 16 ημέρες για να δημιουργήσει ένα νομοσχέδιο που θα έρχεται σε συμφωνία με το Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκαιο. Σε διαφορετική περίπτωση η Ελλάδα θα έχει κυρώσεις.

Η τελευταία παράγραφος της αναφοράς που έστειλε σήμερα η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή αναφέρει:

"Θα θέλαμε να μας γνωστοποιήσετε τις παρατηρήσεις σας σχετικά με αυτό το θέμα μέσα σε 10 εβδομάδες από την στιγμή που παραλάβατε αυτό το έγγραφο. Συγκεκριμένα θα θέλαμε να μάθουμε πως οι ελληνικές αρχές θα χειριστούν αυτή την κατάσταση ώστε να εξασφαλίσουμε πως οι αποφάσεις σας θα συμβαδίζουν με το Ευραπαϊκό Δίκαιο."

Με φιλικούς χαιρετισμούς."

Ακολουθεί αναλυτικά το κείμενο που παρέλαβε σήμερα η ΕΕΕΠ.
 

Subject: Directive 98/34/EC, Decision No. 23/2/23.10.2012 on “Arrangements for certain matters governed by the Gaming Operations and Control Rulebook in relation to the imposition of administrative sanctions, imposed where games of chance are played online without the requisite license”

 Article 1, point 11 of Directive 98/34/EC states that  “technical regulation” is defined as the “technical specifications and other requirements or rules on services, including the relevant administrative provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure or de facto, in the case of marketing, provision of a service, establishment of a service operator or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as laws, regulations or administrative provisions of Member States, except those provided for in Article 10, prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product or prohibiting the provision or use of a service, or establishment as a service provider.”

Article 1, point 2 of Directive 98/34/EC states that service means “any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”. However, it is clear from recital 19 of that Directive that it is also necessary to refer to the definition of services in Article 57 TFEU (ex Article 50 EC) as interpreted in the case law of the Court[1].

The rule relating to Information Society services, according to Article 1 point 5 of Directive 98/34/EC is the “rule on services: a requirement of a general nature relating to the taking-up and pursuit of service activities within the meaning of point 2, in particular provisions concerning the service provider, the services and the recipient of services, excluding any rules which are not specifically aimed at the services defined in that point”.

For the purposes of this definition,

a) a rule shall be considered to be specifically aimed at Information Society services where, having regard to its statement of reasons and its operative part, the specific aim and object of all or some of its individual provisions is to regulate such services in an explicit and targeted manner,

 b) a rule shall not be considered to be specifically aimed at Information Society services if it affects such services only in an implicit or incidental manner.

 Taking those points into consideration, the Commission’s departments focused their attention on Decision No. 23/2/23.10.2012 on “Arrangements for certain matters governed by the Gaming Operations and Control Rulebook in relation to the imposition of administrative sanctions, imposed where games of chance are played online without the requisite license” (hereinafter Decision 23) which was published in the Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic on 5.11.2012 and which will take effect one month after publication on 5.12.2012.

That decision implements the framework law on gaming notified to us as notice No. 2011/166/GR (Law 4002/2011). It imposes sanctions and describes the procedure for how those sanctions are to be imposed, and the type of sanctions for service providers who do not have a license in Greece.

Articles 2 and 3 define unlicensed service providers and the provision on unlicensed services.

Article 2: “Unlicensed online game of chance service providers shall be any legal entity or natural person who posts on the internet and/or operates a website which provides such services without having the license required by Greek law, and any person who in any manner provides access to such websites via another website. The technology used to provide access and the hardware involved shall not affect the meaning of the concept of unlicensed service provider.

Article 3: “Online game of chance services are provided in an unlicensed manner when it is possible to access websites belonging to a provider of such services not licensed by the Hellenic Republic, whose IP address is located in the territory of Greece. The place where the unlicensed provider and his hardware are located, and the ending of the web address shall not affect the meaning of the concept of unlicensed provision of services.”

 Article 4.7 of Decision 23 states that internet service providers (ISPs) must provide the data of persons who are entered in the black list.

“4.7. ISPs whose registered offices or actual management or permanent establishment are in Greece in accordance with the general provisions of Law 2238/1994 shall, when so requested by the HGC, promptly send it the particulars of the persons who are responsible for running and managing the online game of chance websites without a requisite license who are entered in the black list.

Article 51(5) of the framework law, Law 4002/2011, states that the obligation of internet service providers (ISPs) is limited to prohibiting access to unlawful providers of games of chance whose names appear in the relevant black list.

Article 51(5): “Internet service providers (ISPs) whose registered offices or actual management or permanent establishment are in Greece in accordance with the general provisions of Law 2238/1994, are prohibited from granting access to unlawful providers of online games of chance whose names appear in the black list maintained by the Hellenic Gaming Commission.  ISPs who infringe this obligation shall be subject to a fine specified in the Gaming Operations & Control Rulebook.”

 Consequently, the Commission’s departments consider that this decision includes technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC. It also imposes additional obligations on internet service providers which go beyond the obligations laid down in Law 4002/2011.

Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC states that subject to Article 10, Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission any draft technical regulation, before approval in the drafting stage, when it is still possible for amendments to be enacted.

It would appear that the Greek Government did not comply with its duty to notify us.

In light of that, we would like to recall that in its judgement of 30 April 1996 in case CIA Security International (C-194/94) the European Court stated that infringement of the duty to notify in Directive 98/34/EC meant that the relevant technical regulations could not be applied to private individuals.

We would like to receive your observations about this issue within 10 weeks from the date on which you receive this document. In particular, we would like to learn about how the Greek authorities intended to address this situation in order to ensure that the text is compatible with European Union law.

Yours faithfully