2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association (GBGA) challenged the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 under Article 56 TFEU, arguing it was disproportionate, discriminatory, and irrational. The court upheld the Act, finding it lawful under EU and domestic law.
Judgment
INDEX
A. Introduction: Issues and conclusion 1-19 (i) The Parties 1-3 (ii) The Claimant’s challenge 4-9 (iii) The expedited nature of the claim 10-12 (iv) Summary of issues 13 (v) Conclusion/outcome 14-19 B. The regulatory regime under challenge 20-71 (i) Introduction 20-21 (ii) The Gambling Act 2005 (“GA 2005”) and relevant changes brought about by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 (“GLAA 2014”) 22-50 (iii) Statement of principles for licensing and regulation: September 2009 51-55 (iv) Licensing compliance and enforcement policy statement: September 2009 56-60 (v) Licence conditions and codes of practice (consolidated version): May 2014 61-62 (vi) The scope for the exercise of discretion in implementation and enforcement 63-67 (vii) The fees payable under the regulatory regime 68-71 C. The Claimant’s passporting proposal 72-81 (i) Introduction 72 (ii) The initial proposal 73 (iii) The submission that point of consumption regulation would generate an illicit market 74 (iv) The recognition of foreign licensing as sufficient 75-77 (v) The evolution in the proposal to dual licensing 78-79 (vi) The rejection of the passporting proposal by the Minister: 26 th February 2014 80 (vii) The Claimant’s submission that the Defendants misunderstood the passporting proposal 81 ISSUE I: WHETHER THE MEASURES ARE DISPROPORTIONATE, DISCRIMINATORY OR IRRATIONAL D. The prima facie application of Article 56 TFEU to the new licensing regime 82-86 (i) Article 56 TFEU 82-83 (ii) The Claimant’s case in outline as to the restrictive effects of the new regime 84 (iii) The concession by the UK Government that the new regime is prima facie prohibited under Article 56 TFEU 85-86 E. The proportionality test: The relevant law 87-131 (i) The scope for justification: legislative basis 87-88 (ii) Acceptable grounds of justification: Consumer protection, prevention of fraud curtailment of the inducement to squander funds, other overriding public interest grounds 89 (iii) The inadmissibility of economic grounds of justification 90-91 (iv) The proportionality test: Constituent parts 92-95 (v) The evidential task of the national Court: Full assessment 96-98 (vi) The margin of appreciation to be accorded to the decision maker: The meaning of “manifest” as in “manifestly inappropriate” 99-101 (vii) Guidance from European jurisprudence 102-105 (viii) Guidance from domestic jurisprudence 106-110 (ix) Factors in the present case relevant to margin of discretion 111-131 1.