Ladbrokes drops five-year Norway monopoly case after ECJ blow
Ladbrokes has dropped its five-year legal action against Norway's state monopoly but will unite with other operators to fight state monopolies across Europe, the company's Nordic chief has said.
LADBROKES HAS dropped its five-year legal action against Norway’s state monopoly but will unite with other operators to fight state monopolies across Europe, the company’s Nordic chief has said.
The British bookmaker last week took the decision to drop its legal battle against Norwegian authorities, which began when its application for a betting licence was turned down in June 2004, after the European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s last week ruled against Bwin in favour of Portuguese state-run monopoly La Santa da Misericordi on the grounds that protecting a state monopoly was necessary to allow Portugal to combat fraud.
Ladbrokes Nordic chief executive Lasse Dilschmann (pictured) said: “the Casa verdict shows how difficult it is to get a monopoly tried under EU law, as it always ends up that the monopoly can be justified in terms of player protection and fraud prevention. We thought we could run into the same trouble as Bwin in Portugal, and that was a reason we backed out of the legal case in Norway.”
However Dilschmann said Ladbrokes would now throw its weight behind collective efforts on behalf of European operators coordinated by industry trade bodies the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and the Remote Gaming Association (RGA) to collectively challenge state gambling monopolies across Europe.
“We have a very good relationship with the European Gaming and Betting Association and the Remote Gaming Association. We feel there is more to be achieved by helping reach critical mass on these issues among the big online players across Europe,” Dilschmann said.
As reported on EGRmagazine.com, The ECJ ruled that EU principles protecting the right to offer goods and services freely across EU borders enshrined in the EU treaty and upheld in relation to remote gambling in the Gambelli and Planica cases could be restricted if the public interest is at stake.
EGBA responded to the Bwin-Santa Casa verdict by arguing that a state monopoly was not necessary to protect the public, while Bwin argued that major egaming operators were better able to prevent fraud than state monopolies are.