Thus the legislator indicates that profits from gambling do not create an enforceable, a valid claim in the sense that, such profits cannot be claimed in Court, but nevertheless if those profits are, in fact, paid, then the recipient cannot claim a refund, except in the event of fraud.3
As far back as 18874 the organisation of lotteries in Greece without a licence was prohibited. A 1957 law5 prohibited the organization of wagers and bets by anyone except the Greek Horseracing Company and a 1994 law6 prohibited the organization of any game with profit without a license from the State. A royal decree of 1958 founded a Legal Entity under the name «Organismos Progrostikon Agonon Podosferou», otherwise known as «OPAP». Its aim was to operate and organize the betting slips for Greek football matches. In 19977 the management rights on betting were assigned exclusively to the Greek State. These rights were further assigned to OPAP. This State monopoly was even protected by a penal law that was introduced in 1996.8 According to it, anyone offering to the public betting services concerning horse racing, individual games, games with pre-fixed or non-fixed odds or events made available or advertised for betting or in any other way attracting third parties to participate or in any way participating in betting shall be punished by imprisonment and a fine. In addition it is stated that these penalties apply only when another law does not provide for heavier penalties.
In 19969 public companies were allowed to be transformed into private companies of limited liability which would henceforth operate according to the rules of the private economy. OPAP became a limited company (Societé Anonyme) in 1999.10,11 And in 200012 OPAP’s shares were introduced in the Greek Stock Exchange.
The Greek Licensing System
The most important law concerning games of chance in Greece is Law 4002/2011. According to its provisions the operation of slot machines as well as games of chance via the internet are specifically regulated.13 These provisions do not apply to casinos, betting and horseracing that is not offered via the internet.
Therefore all online games of chance operate based on a limited licensing system. Apart from online games of chance, betting is offered solely by OPAP SA, horserace betting is offered solely by“Horseracing S.A”14 and casinos are licensed via a system of limited licenses.
The authority responsible for issuing licenses is the Commission on Monitoring and Control of Games of Chance, which is also responsible for the supervision and monitoring of these games.15
Therefore games of chance in Greece are regulated based on a system of oligopoly, for online casinos and other online games of chance and on a system of monopoly for not online betting and not online casinos.
Compatibility with EU Case Law
The compatibility of Greek legislation to European Union legislation on fundamental rights and free competition was put to test when two UK based private operators providing betting services aimed at expanding their business in other European countries. In 2007 they lodged an application to the Greek authorities in order to be recognised in Greece as legitimate betting services providers and to be granted a license and/or authorization to conclude the relevant concession contract. The application also included the request to immediately stop the activity of the public monopoly’s holder, denouncing the relevant exclusive contract with the Greek State as being contrary to European Community Law. The Greek government did not respond to this application so these companies submitted requests for cancellation to the Supreme Administrative Court against the implied rejection of their request.
As there is no appeal against the Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions, the Court issued a preliminary question to the Court of the European Union. The CEU issued a decision16 stating that a Member State’s legislation imposing restrictions on the betting market constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services.17,18 Such restrictions may be justified, in accordance with the case-law of the CEU, by overriding reasons in the public interest such as the objectives of consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander money on gambling, as well as the general need to preserve public order.19 In the absence of Community regulation, it is for each Member State to decide the degree of protection which it wishes to ensure and impose the respective restrictive system concerning betting provided that proportionality and consistency requirements are satisfied.20,21 It also ruled that it is for the Greek Supreme Administrative Court to decide based on these rules whether the Greek restrictive system is in fact consistent and proportionate.
In 2014 the Greek Supreme Administrative Court issued its decisions22 ruling that the Greek system of regulating betting is in conformity with EU case law. One could claim that such a decision does not cover the whole restrictive system concerning games of chance in Greece, however based on the fact that the consistency with EU rules cannot be decided without the examination of the regulation of games of chance as a whole in a certain member State, it could be concluded that so far the whole regulation of games of chance in Greece is in conformity with EU rules.
1. See CEU case C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, delivered 14-10-2008, paras. 16-17.
2. See Articles 844,845, 846 of the Greek Civil Code.
3. See scientific report of Law 2433/1996 dd. 8-7-1996.
4. See Law AXL΄ of 30-12-1887 «About Lotteries» as well as law 5101/1931.
5. See Law 3769/1957.
6. See law 2206/1994.
7. See Presidential Decree 250/1997.
8. See article 2 of Law 2433/1996.
9. See article 1 of Law 2414/1996.
10. See Presidential Decree 228/1999.
11. OPAP’s Statutes have been approved by the 442/9/2001 Ministerial Decision.
12. See Art. 1 of law 2843/2000.
13. See art. 25-54 of Law 4002/2011.
14. See Law 2338/2015.
15. See Article 17 of Law 3229/2004 and Article 28 § 3 of Law 4002/2011.
16. See CEU joined cases C-186/11 & C-209/11
17. See, to that effect, CEU Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I‑13031, paragraph 54.
18. See CEU Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Baw International Ltd v
Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, paras. 51-54.
19. See, to that effect, Joined cases Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Placanica, C-338/04,
C-359/04 and C-360/04, Judgment of 6th March 2007, [2007] ECR I-01891 and case-law cited therin.
20. See CEU Case C-124/97 Läärä and Others [1999] ECR I‑6067, paragraph 36, and Case C-67/98
Zenatti [1999] ECR I‑7289, paragraph 34.
21. See CEU Case C-42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Baw International Ltd v
Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, paras. 55-59.
22. See Greek Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions 3167/2014 and 3168/2014.