CASE COMMENTS: REGULATIONS – GENERAL ASPECTS – BETTING ON HORSERACING – MONOPOLY

Legal restrictions : The French Supreme Administrative Court holds that the Law of 2 June 1891 conferring a monopoly for the management of brick-and-mortar bets on horseracing does not disregard the freedoms of movement (M. B.)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. In the decision commented on, the Conseil d'État had before it an appeal brought by Mr B. challenging the monopoly enjoyed by the Pari mutuel urbain (PMU) on off-racetrack betting "en dur", that is to say, on bets placed at physical commitment points. This monopoly was conferred on it by Article 27 of Decree No 97-456 of 5 May 1997, adopted pursuant to Article 5 of the Law of 2 June 1891. It has been preserved from the opening to competition of the sector imposed by European Union law: the legislator had not called it into question in its Law No. 2010-476 of May 12, 2010 relating to the opening to competition and regulation of the online gambling sector.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Emmanuel Guillaume, Pierre-Edouard Pivois, Legal restrictions : The French Supreme Administrative Court holds that the Law of 2 June 1891 conferring a monopoly for the management of brick-and-mortar bets on horseracing does not disregard the freedoms of movement (M. B.), 9 December 2016, Concurrences N° 2-2017, Art. N° 83954, pp.170-173

Visites 166

All reviews