Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:33:02.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ONLINE GAMBLING AND THE FURTHER DISPLACEMENT OF STATE REGULATION: A NOTE ON PMU V ZETURF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2008

Justin Borg Barthet
Justin Borg Barthet
Affiliation:
Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Assistant, School of Law, University of Aberdeen.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 417 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cour de Cassation, Chambre Commeciale, Financière et Économique, Arrêt No 1023 du 10 juillet 2007, GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)/Zeturf, Eturf; the judgment may be viewed at <http://www.gaminglaw.eu/upload/actuality/doc/98-1.pdf> and <http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_publications_documentation_2/actualite_jurisprudence_21/chambre_commerciale_financiere_economique_574/arrets_575/br_arret_10674.html> accessed 7 Aug 2007.

2 Case C–275/92 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-01039.

3 ibid.

4 Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1.

5 Malta Lotteries and Gaming Authority, ‘Fact Sheet. Malta: Europe's Gateway for Remote Gaming’ <http://www.lga.org.mt/lga/files_folder/FactSheet%20-%20EU%20Gateway.pdf> accessed 6 Aug 2007.

6 Malta Lotteries and Gaming Authority, ‘Processing of New Remote Gaming Applications’ (2007) <http://www.lga.org.mt/lga/news_full.asp?newsID=50> accessed 6 Aug 2007.

7 Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, ‘Study of Gambling Services in the Internal Market of the European Union’ (2006) <http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/gambling/study2_en.pdf> 613, accessed 6 Aug 2006.

8 See Case C–243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031; and Joined Cases C–338/04 Massimiliano Placanica, C–359/04 Christian Palazzese, and C–360/04 Angelo Sorricchio.

9 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Ordonnance de référé 08 juillet 2005 PMU/Zeturf, Eturf <http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=1459> accessed 7 Aug 2007.

10 Zeturf.com, ‘Why bet on Zeturf?’ <http://www.zeturf.com/en/static/pourquoi_zeturf> accessed 7 Aug 2007.

11 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Ordonnance de référé 02 novembre 2005 PMU/Computer Aided Technologies, Bell Med <http://www.legalis.net/breves-article.php3?id_article=1511> accessed 7 Aug 2007.

12 Cour d'appel de Paris 14ème chambre, section A, Arrêt du 4 janvier 2006 Zeturf, Eturf/PMU <http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=1552> accessed 7 Aug 2007.

13 Recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the French Court of Appeal was also sought in Malta; citing the judgment of the Maltese Court of Appeal discussed below, the Civil Court denied recognition and enforcement. See Civil Court (First Hall) Application 82/2007 GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) vs Zeturf (2 Mar 2007).

14 (n 12).

15 (n 9).

16 Civil Appeal No 139/2006/1 GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) vs Zeturf (12 Jan 2007).

17 Case C–266/01 Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA v Netherlands [2003] ECR I-4867.

18 ibid.

19 (n 12).

20 Civil Appeal Number 224/2006/1GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) vs Bell Med Limited u Computer Aided Technologies Limited (26 June 2007).

21 PMU also requested a reference regarding whether or not the judgment of the French Court should be deemed to be a ‘civil or commercial matter’. This second request was summarily denied since it was formulated as a question regarding the particular facts of the case that the national court should apply the law to, rather than a question of interpretation on which a national court would require the ECJ's authoritative interpretation per Article 234 of the EC Treaty.

22 A Briggs and P Rees, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (4th edn, Lloyd's of London Press, London 2005) 495–96.

23 ibid.

24 (n 1).

25 Case C–124/97 Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio (Finnish State) [1999] ECR I-06067.

26 Case C–67/1998 Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289.

27 Case C–243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031.

28 (n 5).

29 Legal Notice 176 of 2004, Remote Gaming Regulations 2004.

30 ibid Art 27.

31 Civil Court, First Hall, Cit Nru 822/2005 Bell Med Limited vs Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) (30 May 2007).

32 Case C–275/92 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler [1994] ECR I-01039; Case C–67/1998 Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289.

33 (n 1).

34 Art 60.

35 (n 2).

36 Reuters, ‘Update 2—EU to decide on several gambling legal actions’ (26 June 2007) <http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSL2690991920070626> accessed 6 Aug 2007.

37 See NA O'Connor, ‘From Schindler to Placanica and Beyond’ (2007) <http://www.bettingmarket.com/eurolaw222428.htm> accessed 6 Aug 2007.

38 Joined Cases C–338/04 Massimiliano Placanica, C–359/04 Christian Palazzese, and C–360/04 Angelo Sorricchio.

39 T Buck, ‘Seven countries face legal threat on betting markets’ Financial Times (London, 5 April 2006) <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9edcf756-c440-11da-bc52-0000779e2340.html> accessed 6 Aug 2007.