European Court Rules Greek Monopoly in Violation of EU Law

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has finally issued a ruling that breaks OPAP’s Greek Gaming Monopoly.

EU licensed operators have been given the green light to make immediate applications to offer online gaming, including poker, in Greece.

The ruling comes as the result of an action brought in 2004 by Stanleybet which sought an “annulment of the Greek authorities’ tacit rejection of its application” to be given permission to provide sport betting services to Greek customers.

William Hill and Sportingbet followed up with similar actions in 2007.

A majority of members of the Greek national court ruled that the monopoly breached European law, but the minority dissension led them to ask for an ECJ ruling on three questions.

In response to two of these questions, the ECJ ruled that it was up to the State itself to decide. However, responding to the third question, the ECJ was explicit in prohibiting any form of transitional period where licenses applications from other operators could be ignored.

In summary, the first question asked whether the Greek national law complied with EU laws on the free movement of services within the Union; The ECJ ruled that it was up to the national court to decide, which gives effect to the national court’s previous ruling that OPAP’s monopoly is not legal.

The second question asked whether it would be legal to establish a monopoly gaming provider if the purpose was exclusively to “combat criminality by exercising control over the undertakings that operate in the sector;” The ECJ again ruled it was a matter for the State to decide.

The most important ruling was to the final question—whether the Greek State could introduce a transitional period where it did not have to examine license applications from gaming business legally established in other EU states.

Here, the ECJ ruled specifically that such a transitional period would be illegal. Greece has to examine operators applications for permission to offer gambling services immediately.

In addition, the ECJ warned that a monopoly could only be justified if it “.. genuinely [meets] the concern to reduce opportunities for gambling” and that it “limited activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner.”

The State could define the criteria for accepting applications, but these must be “on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory criteria” based on the desired “level of consumer protection and the preservation of order in society.”

OPAP—to give it its full name, the Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics S.A—is listed on the main Athens Stock Exchange. Its shares fell over 11% on the news and the company has as yet declined to comment.

The Greek government’s 34% stake is one of the assets that the “Troika”—currently in charge of Greece’s economic decisions—has ordered to be sold to meet the country’s financial bailout conditions.

Shares in other gaming operators rose slightly on the prospects of the Greek market re-opening.

The muted response may be because the story is not yet over. The ECJ did leave open the possibility for Greece to re-establish its monopoly under certain conditions:

Member States remain free to undertake reforms of existing monopolies in order to make them compatible with Treaty provisions, inter alia by making them subject to effective and strict controls by the public authorities.

The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) have both welcomed the news. CEO of the RGA, Clive Hawkswood announced: “The Court today has come out strongly against Greece, and we hope that this will in turn be a signal to other Member States that compliance with EU law is expected of them.”

At the EGBA, Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General said, “Given the factual setup of OPAP’s monopoly which clearly fails to meet the CJEU test we hardly expect effective control to be implemented in the future. Therefore, Greece should follow the Court’s clear advice to liberalise the market.”