January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Bill Amendment of the Gambling Act Passed Second Test Successfully in Bulgaria

On December 12, 2013, a Bill amending and liberalizing the Gambling Act (“Bill”) successfully passed second reading in the Budget and Finance Commission in the Bulgarian Parliament, after passing its first plenary voting upon tense disputes on December 4, 2013.

The second and final plenary voting is expected to happen before Christmas and the Bill to come into force on January 1, 2014. Amendments in the Bill are still possible, though not likely to happen.

Any liberalization of the gaming regime usually faces strong opposition based upon public interest issues, including addiction prevention arguments and concerns that changes in the taxation model will hurt the state budget.

However, we have to face facts. One and a half years after the adoption of the present Gambling Act, nothing has changed drastically. The unauthorized sites are still easily accessible, there is no queuing for remote gambling licenses as once predicted, and the new revenue streams to the state treasury literally turned out to be a fiction rather than a reality.

All those indicators are clearly showing that an amendment of the gaming model is necessary in order to improve the gaming sector environment in Bulgaria. This might be the main reason for the brisk Parliamentary initiative to try to introduce the new gaming rules perhaps as early as January 2014.

The main proposals are aiming to create a more balanced taxation model, to raise the awareness of the players, to introduce the currently missing responsible gaming rules and relevant control mechanisms, and to reduce the administrative barriers for entry of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) gaming equipment producers.

The introduction of the gross gaming revenue-based taxation (20%) corresponds to the approach applied in several European jurisdictions, a majority of which have reported liberalization success stories.

It has been proven again that the key to the prevention of the gambling addiction should not be associated only with administrative prevention measures. In the contemporary connected e-world, the administrative prevention measures look insufficient alone to reach effectively and efficiently the set regulatory goals. That is where self- regulation and co-regulation can offer adequate support instruments to make a substantive positive difference.

Last but not least, can anyone control strictly advertising on the Internet? The answer is obvious: No. Giving the legal gaming organizers more freedom to raise the awareness of the players through advertising will reduce the negative impact from the grey market gaming sector and the misleading advertising practices associated with it. An informed player risks less.

The EEA gaming equipment producers are not obliged to get a local license in order to sell in Bulgaria. They are now given the option to place their products through a locally licensed importer, as long as the equipment is of a type approved by the Regulator based upon an approval statement by a locally recognized gaming equipment testing laboratory.

The Bill as passed in the second reading is far from pure perfection. It will probably create some challenges for the authorities that are entrusted with its enforcement.

Nevertheless, the efforts of the present Parliament are appreciated highly by the gaming industry. They seem aimed to balance and optimize the new sector regulation model, introduced back in 2012, covering also the distant internet gambling activities. It is therefore not surprising that the remote gaming sector generally supports the proposed amendments.

Nadya Hambach and Parvan Rusinov of Velchev & Co. authored this article.

© Copyright 2019 Dickinson Wright PLLC

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Robert Stocker, gaming law attorney, Dickinson Wright, law firm
Member & Gaming Practice Leader

Robert W. Stocker, II is the Gaming Practice Group Leader.

PROMINENT ASSIGNMENTS

Extensive hearing practice before the Michigan Gaming Control Board.

Drafting referendum approved amendment to Michigan Constitution.

Drafting of legislative amendments to the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Drafting regulations implementing legislation. 

Drafting of motions, briefs, and opinion memoranda in diverse areas of insurance coverage,...

517-487-4715
Dennis J. Whittlesey tribal law attorney, dickinson wright law firm
Member

PROMINENT ASSIGNMENTS Expertise in development of economic projects, including casinos, for Indian tribes in America and Canada Served as legal counsel to both unrecognized and federally recognized Indian tribes, providing counsel on Indian gaming law and Indian lands as well as a wide range of state and federal taxation issues unique to Indian tribes, individuals and lands Served as Special Counsel for Gaming to the cities of Detroit; Buffalo, NY; Battle Creek, MI; Lima, OH; Middleborough, MA; and Barstow, CA as well as Calhoun County, MI, DeKalb County, IL, and seven California counties Represented developers in their dealings with Indian tribes, including Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. and Delaware Casino Development and Management Co., LLC

202-659-6928
Michael Lipton, Gaming regulatory attorney, Canada, Dickinson Wright law firm
Partner

Michael Lipton is a partner in our Gaming Regulation Practice Group. He has an extensive practice before gaming regulatory authorities throughout Canada and advises clients in regard to compliance, governance and due diligence requirements integral to the gaming industry. Michael also counseled clients in regard to amendments to gaming legislation enacted by government of Ontario including drafting legislative amendments and advised provincial governments in regard to gaming provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code.

416-866-2929
Peter H. Ellsworth, Commercial Business Attorney, Dickinson Wright law firm
Member

Counsel for Republican Party in legislative and congressional reapportionment litigation (1991-92, 2001-02, 2011).

Counsel to property and casualty insurance companies in litigation over credit scoring.

Counsel to Michigan Chamber of Commerce in litigation to block “Reform Government Now” constitutional amendments.

Counsel to Snyder for Governor campaign.

Counsel to Snyder transition team.

Counsel to Engler for Governor campaign (1990, 1994, 1998).

517-487-4710
Glenn Feldman, Federal Indian, tribal, gaming, Dickinson Wright, law firm
Member

Glenn’s practice is devoted exclusively to Federal Indian Law, with heavy emphasis on Indian gaming and reservation economic development activities. He is counsel to a number of Indian tribes, tribal casinos and tribal business ventures in Arizona, California and other western states.

602-285-5138