Skriftlig fråga till Kommissionen om nationella spelmonopol i Europeiska unionen
On 4th April 2006 the European Commission began infringement proceedings against 7 Member States (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, and Sweden) for their monopolistic restrictions in the provision of sports betting services in contradiction to Article 49 of the EU Treaty.On 21st March 2007, almost a year later, the European Commission decided to pursue these proceedings to the next procedural level by sending Reasoned Opinions to Denmark, Finland, and Hungary; stating formally the contradiction of their monopolistic legal framework to the provisions and freedoms of the EU Treaty. Another Reasoned Opinion was subsequently sent to Sweden in June 2007 as it became evident that not enough was being done by Sweden towards complying with EU law.
Since then, available public information suggests that none of these countries have taken any steps to remedy the situation and comply with the provisions of the EU Treaty. In contrast, in at least one of these four countries even more obvious violations of the freedom to provide services have been introduced.
1. Can the Commission explain the reason(s) behind its delay in pursuing even one of these cases (Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Sweden) to the European Court of Justice as nearly nine months have passed since the first reasoned opinion?
2. Given this protracted delay and the fact that already the Commission has been criticized for procrastinating in pursuing similar infringement proceedings for political sensitivity reasons as stated in the Ombudsmans Special Report of 30th May 2006, does the Commission intend to address these cases in the upcoming Commissioners College?
