Abstract
And I believed in my system … within a quarter of an hour I won 600 francs. This whetted my appetite. Suddenly I started to lose, couldn't control myself and lost everything. After that I … took my last money, and went to play … I was carried away by this unusual good fortune and I risked all 35 napoleons and lost them all. I had 6 napoleons left to pay the landlady and for the journey. In Geneva I pawned my watch. Whether or not consumers should be protected against their propensity for gambling addictions is a public policy decision that is left exclusively to the individual Member State. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed 'high trust' principles that provide Member States wide discretion to determine what system of protection - if any - works best in their territory. However, if a Member States policy turns out to be inconsistent with its policy aims and restricts free movement, the Court is not scared to strike it down. The latest judgments in the gambling saga build upon sixteen years of case law. This article investigates whether Member States are by now dealt with a stacked deck of principles.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
