Sök artiklar i SveMed+

Observera: SveMed+ upphör att uppdateras!



Justifications of national gambling policies in France and Finland
Engelsk titel: Justifications of national gambling policies in France and Finland Läs online Författare: Marionneau, Virve Språk: Eng Antal referenser: 27 Dokumenttyp: Artikel UI-nummer: 15083201

Tidskrift

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2015;32(3)295-309 ISSN 1455-0725 E-ISSN 1458-6126 KIBs bestånd av denna tidskrift Denna tidskrift är expertgranskad (Peer-Reviewed)

Sammanfattning

AIMS - The principles of free trade and free circulation of services within the European Union have created pressures to make the strictly controlled European gambling markets more open. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, restrictions on gambling are only allowed if they are justified in admissible terms of consumer protection, prevention of criminal activity and protection of public order. This study compares the gambling laws of two European societies, France and Finland, to analyse how their legal frames of gambling have been adjusted to these principles. DESIGN - The data consists of up-to-date legislation on gambling in Finland and France. A qualitative analysis was conducted to study whether new ways of justifying have been included in legislative texts and if these are substantiated by measures related to consumer protection or crime prevention. RESULTS - France has mainly justified its restrictive policies on gambling in terms of preventing criminal activities while the Finnish legislation highlights the charitable causes funded by gambling proceeds, a claim not accepted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Consumer protection is increasingly stressed in both countries, and the range of rationales has also grown notably since 2007. CONCLUSION - While the vocabularies of justification accepted by the CJEU have expanded since 2007, these have not been substantiated by many new legislative measures. This is not attributed to political ill will but rather to the difficulty of changing existing legislative traditions.