Gata cu distractia!

[obs]

In sfarsit, ne starpesc si pe noi.


Ministerul Finantelor

[Donatello]

unde emigram?
cand intra in vigoare legea asta? ne scoatem banii?

[obs]

Eu plec 100% daca se intampla asa ceva. Unde? I don't give a flying fuck. Intre Tanzania si Germania nu fac nici o diferenta, doar plec din Romania.

Oricum, se pot crea canale securizate pana la servere de-afara. Tre sa discut cu un inernet nerd sa-mi spuna cum se face.

[cereala]

come on; wtf is this shiet??? sa dau withdraw BR?

[sever]

Nu sint postate detalii si iar sint interpretari. Scrie concret de poker? Poate e vorba doar de infiintarea de cazinouri online in Romania si nu de accesul nostru online.

Unde sint multi bani se rezolva, vor fi presiuni. Din partea companiilor mari care s-au bagat pe .ro. Din partea jucatorilor va fi mai greu.

Sa ne amintim ca a fost interzis si in Italia si alte tari si s-a revenit. Si cu interventia UE.
Care se baga in seama si cu SUA:

European Commission Finds US Gaming Laws in Violation of Int’l Trade Laws

[frenzy]

"Se consideră că, prin introducerea acestor criterii se reglementează un cadru adecvat cerinţelor europene în domeniu, având un impact social pozitiv prin reducerea dependenţei potenţialilor participanţi la joc şi protejarea persoanelor minore."

cadrul adecvat inseamna interzicerea totala?
ar fi deja a doua "activitate" pe care ar trebui sa o intrerup din cauza mizeriei numite Uninuea Europeana.

[Donatello]

de unde si pana unde vorbesc agaricii astia de dependenta? cine a facut ordonanta asta?

[obs]

Poate e vorba doar de infiintarea de cazinouri online in Romania si nu de accesul nostru online.

Privesti zecimea plina a paharului. Sper sa fie asa, cu toate ca nu-i vad sa fie in stare de diferente de-astea in parlamentul ala de hahalere decapitate.

[sever]

"Se consideră că, prin introducerea acestor criterii se reglementează un cadru adecvat cerinţelor europene în domeniu, având un impact social pozitiv prin reducerea dependenţei potenţialilor participanţi la joc şi protejarea persoanelor minore."

cadrul adecvat inseamna interzicerea totala?
ar fi deja a doua "activitate" pe care ar trebui sa o intrerup din cauza mizeriei numite Uninuea Europeana.

E o gargara de al lor, pe care o arunca in fata. Link or it didnt happen, vreau sa vad si eu parerea UE despre poker... din ce am citit in anii astia sint cam PRO

Close-up on poker regime in France

European Commission Rejects Belgium’s Online Gaming Nationalization Plan
30 june 2009

By Earl Burton for POKER NEWS DAILY | Posted on June 30, 2009

After receiving the proposed legislation of online gaming that the nation of Belgium planned to enact, the European Commission yesterday rejected their plan due to language in the proposed laws that appears to be a nationalization plan rather than acceptable regulation and legislation.

According to the European Gaming and Betting Association (EBGA), the European Commission was correct in their decision to prohibit Belgium from putting the new laws into effect. The Belgian plan, which was sent to the EC as well as the other Member Nations – which comprise much of the European continent – on March 27th, looked to put into place laws which restricted the online gaming and betting market to operators solely established in Belgium. This is a violation of the European Union treaty that allows for free trade practices between its Member Nations.

Several areas of the proposed Belgian laws were pointed out by the European Commission to be in violation. They included such language as required the operators of online gaming and poker sites to be based in Belgium, limitation of available licenses, criminal prosecution of customers that would play on non-sanctioned sites and restriction of services from outside nations. Belgium was also looking to use ISP blocking software to prohibit its citizens from playing on other licensed European Union sites, something that the EC was strongly against.

The Director for Regulatory Affairs of the EGBA, Maarten Haijer, was in agreement with the European Commission’s decision to disallow the drafted legislation. “The requirement for operators to be established in Belgium is one of the clearest violations of EC Treaty provisions”, Haijer stated during the EGBA’s announcement of the decision. “It wrongly denies that many online gaming operators are effectively regulated, licensed and controlled elsewhere in the EU. As several jurisdictions in the EU already prove, it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming and betting market at the same time.”

The ruling by the European Commission prevents Belgium from enacting their plan and offers them an opportunity to present an acceptable plan by July 30th. If Belgium proceeds forward and implements the legislation, the EC has stated that they will also proceed with infringement proceedings of the European Union treaty, which could result in trade restrictions within the EU.

The recent refusal to accept Belgium’s plan for regulation of the online gaming and poker industry is in step with previous rulings from the European Commission regarding the subject. On June 8th, the EC rejected a similar proposal from France, whose proposed legislation had many of the same components as the Belgian plan. The French have until August to present an acceptable proposal.

Although the European Commission has been rejecting these proposals from Belgium and France, there is still a great deal of conflict over the issue throughout Europe. Back in March, the European Union was unable to come to any concrete agreement that would allow for the legislation of online gaming and poker and would provide for freedom of trade between its Member Nations. Without such comprehensive legislation, many nations have attempted to nationalize their online gaming industries, which is against the EU Treaty. Until the EU is able to have its Member Nations agree to a comprehensive plan, the conflict over internet gaming and poker will continue to provide problems.

Sweden asks European Court of Justice for Online Gaming Guidelines
By Maria Del Mar for POKER NEWS DAILY | Posted on October 09, 2008

In 2004, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that the country’s law defending its gambling monopoly was in line with the European Community (EC) Treaty. A few years and a few lawsuits later, the Supreme Court has become unsure about this ruling, and has ordered the Court of Appeals to verify that the Swedish Lottery Law – which protects national monopoly Svenska Spel – is indeed in agreement with supranational EU law.

According to the Gaming Intelligence Group, the Swedish Court of Appeal then issued five questions for the European Court of Justice aiming to find out if Swedish limitations on foreign gaming providers are permissible under EC rules. These questions are allegedly “the most comprehensive set of questions to date to be put to the ECJ.”

This is the text of the five questions:

1. Can discrimination by reason of nationality be passed under any circumstances on national gambling and lottery markets due to coercive consideration for the interest of the public?
2. If several reasons for the restrictive laws on the gambling and lottery market exist and one of them is the financing of social activities, can this be said to be an incidental beneficial consequence of the restrictive laws? If the answer is no, can the restrictive laws be said to be acceptable if the purpose to finance social activities cannot be said to be the main reason for the restrictive laws?
3. Can the state refer to coercive consideration for the interest of the public as a reason for restrictive gambling laws if state owned companies market games and lotteries whose income benefits the state and one of several purposes of this marketing is the financing of social activities? If the answer to this question is no, can the restrictive laws still be acceptable if financing of social activities is not deemed to be the main reason for the marketing?
4. Can a total ban on the marketing of gambling and lotteries organized in another member state by a company licensed and controlled by the authorities in that state be proportionate for the purpose of controlling and supervising gambling when there are no restrictions on the marketing of games and lotteries organized by the company licensed in the state practicing the restrictive laws? What is the answer to this question if the purpose of this arrangement is to limit gambling?
5. Has a gambling company licensed and controlled by the competent authorities in one country the right to market its products in other member countries, for instance by advertising in newspapers without first applying for permission to do so from the competent authorities in those countries? If the answer to this question is yes, does this mean that a member country’s regulation which is intended to penalize the promotion of participation in lotteries organized in foreign countries is an obstacle to the freedom of consideration of the public interest? Will the answer to the first question be different if the country in which the gambling company is licensed invokes the same consideration for the interest of the public as the country the company wants to market its gambling services in?

Nobody is holding their breath waiting for the ECJ’s answers – experts estimate they may take 18 to 24 months to be issued. Stefan Widmark, Partner at Mannheimer Swartling and Sweden’s main lawyer in this case, looks forward to the ramifications of this probe:

It will take time, but from the moment these questions are raised, the debate will be elevated to a totally new level. It is a very important development that the Swedish court has been brave enough to face its responsibilities and enter this debate after years of intransigence.

He is right about the debate entering a new level: it is speculated that EU members with state gaming monopolies (such as Germany, France and Portugal) could rise against this case, and it is also expected that all major private operators will rally to ensure the case is heard. The answers to these questions could potentially lead the way for an open and regulated gaming market in the EU

[Donatello]

bravo, macar aia sa fie intregi la minte..

[frenzy]

e scumpa chiria in Suedia. in Belgia nu stiu...

[sever]

In Belgia e super boring, poate confirma Tzompu.
Si e si filmul ala tare cu C. Farrell, In Bruges

[tzompu]

Nu prea se joaca poker in belgia,dar e aproape amsterdam si paris.
Sunt scumpe toate.
Daca esti solitar merge,daca iti place verdeata etc.
E linistit nu si in centru.
In belgia e bine ca poti sa zici ca stai in 4 tari.Belgia,olanda,franta si germania.Deci boring nu cred ca are cum sa fie.
P.S:5 si anglia

[Butu Mic]

Pana la urma e pe bune treaba asta? Daca da, de cand se va interzice?

[DoiCromoY]

Interzicerea jocurilor on-line? Deci daca nu am lasam de wow oricum imi interziceau ei? )

Da.. stiu se refereau la jocurile de noroc dar nu specifica...