Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-11-Speech-4-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100211.4.4-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you can imagine the great pleasure it gives me to return here just 48 hours after the investiture of the College – for which I thank you – and to continue my work with you, Mr Harbour – and I say this in particular to the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection – in a different manner, and most likely in a different place, but in the same spirit.
I should like to thank you again for your interest in this important subject and for the contribution you will be making to the Commission’s work that I shall be undertaking.
I wish to make three points by way of response at this stage, before listening carefully to what you have to say. Let me start with your first question. As you say, the Commission has initiated infringement procedures against a number of Member States in the area of the cross-border provision of sports betting services. The Commission notes that, in four of the nine infringement cases – that is in Denmark, France, Italy and Hungary – amendments to domestic legislation have been proposed in response to the infringement procedures. The Commission will continue to work with all Member States concerned to resolve the problems identified in these infringement procedures. In general, these procedures remain open, but it is for the new Commission to decide how to proceed with these questions.
The second point, Mr Harbour, is the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Portuguese case, where a long-established state monopoly exercises strict control over gambling. According to the analysis carried out by the Commission’s legal service, this decision will fundamentally change neither the development nor the assessment of the infringement procedures in this area. Every case has been evaluated according to the evidence presented by each Member State.
Following recent Court rulings, the Commission notes that the Court always requires, in conformity, moreover, with established case law, that any possible restrictions should, firstly, be justified by valid considerations of the public interest and, secondly, should be necessary and proportionate. This includes the need for the restrictions to be appropriate, coherent and systematic.
It does not therefore follow from the Santa Casa case that the Court has given Member States greater leeway to impose restrictions. The Court made very precise reference to the operating methods of the Portuguese monopoly, to its very long history and to the very specific circumstances of that country.
For point three of my first speech, I should like to stress, ladies and gentlemen, that the Commission has not ruled out alternatives to infringement procedures. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to start a constructive debate on this question with the European Parliament, but also with the Member States and the parties concerned.
I note that there has been no consultation with Member States on this question since the latter chose in 2006 to withdraw gambling from the scope of the Services Directive. I shall therefore be listening to Member States and I have decided to follow closely the proceedings of the Council working group. I know that on the initiative of Mrs Schaldemose, Parliament adopted a report on 10 March, even though a number of Members supported an opposing resolution.
As far as I am concerned, Parliament’s work is a good starting point for opening a genuine debate on a potential European solution to this complex issue. We must undertake a closer examination of the reasons why Member States restrict online gambling services. In this context, we must, of course, deal with the social aspects, notably the problems of addiction associated with gaming, and I have decided to do so.
Ladies and gentlemen, the College has scarcely been in office two days, and we have not yet adopted our work programme. Starting from today, I want to carry out this consultation exercise by listening very carefully to everything that each of you has to say. It – I refer here to consultation – is an exercise in relation to which there are, of course, several possibilities. In particular, one such possibility that I am prepared to consider is a green paper on this question."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples