16 Amendments of Robert ROCHEFORT related to 2011/2084(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Internet gambling market is growing constantly,online gambling sector is growing constantly, and whereas to a large extent this growth is not being scrutinised by the national governments of the citizens to whom such gambling services are provided, (The first part of this amendment applies to the entire text, and consists in replacing the term ‘gambling market’ with the term ‘gambling sector’ and the term ‘Internet gambling’ with the term ‘online gambling’. Should it be adopted, these changes will be made throughout the text.)
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Article 56 TFEU guarantees the freedom to provide services, but Internetsubject to any restrictions the Member States may impose in accordance with the Treaty, such that online gambling washad to be expressly exempted from the Services Directive because it is not a normal servicE- Commerce, Services and Consumer Rights Directives on account of its specific nature,
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Internet gambling and betting are liable to undermine the principle of equality among both sportspeople and the gamblers and betters, and involve a greater risk of addiction and dangers than traditional physical, location- based gambling,
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas, in order to achieve these objectives, it is essential to introduce mechanisms for scrutinising sports competitions and financial flows, along with common supervisory mechanisms at the EU level,
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. whereas international-level cooperation among all stakeholders (institutions, sports federations and betting operators) is also crucial with a view to pooling good practices,
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph - 1 (new)
Paragraph - 1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the Commission’s clarification of the fact that the political process initiated by means of the Green Paper is in no way aimed at deregulating/liberalising online gambling;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 3
Paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) guarantee effective protection for young people and gamblersgamblers, with specific attention to vulnerable groups, in particular young people,
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 6
Paragraph 1 – point 6
(6) that risks to the integrity of sporting competition are precludgradually eradicated and
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Sees such regulation as having the potential to ensure that sports competitions are attractive to consumers and to the public, that sports results remain credible and that the competitions retain their prestige;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underscores the standpoint of the European Court of Justice12, that the Internet is simply a channel for offering games of chance; 12 12 12 , although Member States’ discretion in determining their own approach to the regulation of Carmen Media 2010 (C-46/08). Carmen Media 2010 (C-46/08). Carmen Media 2010 (C-46/08). Internet gambling is unaffected thereby and they can still restrict or prohibit the provision of certain services to consumers;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Rejects, accordingly, any European legislative act uniformly regulating the entire on-line gambling market, but nonetheless takes the view that, in some sectors, a uniform European approachsuch as the implementation of the law, administrative cooperation and information sharing, technological standards, and a degree of cooperation on consumer protection, a uniform European approach, combined with effective and independent national-level regulation, would be appropriate;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls - in keeping with the principle of ‘active subsidiarity’ - for a common regulatory framework laying down binding high-level minimum standards with regard to preventing gambling addiction and betting fraud and to protecting young people and other vulnerable groups; states that, where a provider complies with those minimum standards, the other Member States should recognise this accordingly, but may set further conditions; is of the opinion that a pan- European code of conduct for Internet gambling could be a first step;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Observes that, according to a recently published study2, the gambling market was identified as the sector where the lack of an alternative dispute resolution system most frequently makes itself felt; suggests, therefore, that national regulatory agencies could establish alternative dispute resolution systems for the on-line gambling sector;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that betting on, in particular, minor-sports competitions may represent a risk to the integrity of sport; is therefore of the view that sport fraud and betting fraud should be penalised throughout Europe; calls on the Member States to class such cases of fraud as criminal offences so as to punish effectively the manipulation of betting and sports results;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers stronger safeguards against the risks of on-line betting and gambling to be an essential part of protecting the integrity of sport; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to propose ways of raising the awareness of sportspeople and consumers of all ages and at all levels (both amateur and professional) from their childhood;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is aware of the importance of the contribution from gambling revenue towards the funding of sport in the Member States; states that further development of the Internet gambling market should therefore not lead to a reduction in sports funding; considers that alternative financing arrangements involving sports betting operators should be studied; calls for balanced solutions – beneficial for both betting providers and sport as a whole – to be found;