Latest News

FURTHER DOUBT THROWN ON COMPLIANCE OF ITALY’S SPORTS BETTING LAWS WITH EC LAW –

Feb 03, 2010

• > Cassazione's ruling indicates serious doubt about the compliance with European law of the 2006 Bersani sports betting licences, pointing to substantial uncertainties of interpretation.

• > To end this long-running controversy, Cassazione adjourned existing legal actions and referred the case to the European Court of Justice for guidance to arrive at a final decision.

• > After over 10 years of disruption to its business, Stanleybet is acknowledged as uniquely legal among foreign operators.

3 February 2010 - Italy's Supreme Criminal Court ("Cassazione") has thrown into question the regulatory framework that protects companies which were awarded licences under the Bersani tender in 2006 and has referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for clarification.

John Whittaker, CEO Stanleybet, Europe's leading cross-border retail sports betting company, said "We have long been concerned about the erroneous perception that Italy's legal framework for sports betting, as a result of conducting the Bersani tender in 2006, was open and compliant with EC law.  We welcome this decision by Cassazione to adjourn legal actions and to refer to the European Court of Justice to seek a final resolution.  Other countries seeking a model on which to base their laws must look elsewhere than Italy.  

"We are particularly delighted that after disruptions going back over 10 years, Cassazione recognises that our business has a unique legal position, quite distinct from other foreign companies which operate in Italy without permission and which have sought to take advantage of Stanleybet's efforts to achieve justice over the years." 

The Court has taken the view that serious uncertainties of interpretation still remain about the breadth of freedoms of establishment and provision of cross-border services (Articles 49 and 56 TFUE).  It questions whether those freedoms can be restricted by a domestic tender system issuing a number of concessions, supported by police licences, in a situation where:

• § holders of previously-issued concessions are protected although new entrants were denied access to the market

• § competition is restricted because new concessions are prevented from locating premises within a certain distance of existing concessions

• § a concession can be forfeited with a consequent demand against financial guarantees and bonds if the concession holder was also engaging in cross border activities similar to those operated under the concession.

Back to Latest News