Author: SME Chamber

The much-awaited Green Paper public consultation on online gambling in the Internal Market was adopted by the Commission on 24 March 2011. Commissioner Barnier had announced the intention to engage in extensive dialogue in February 2010, responding to calls from the European Parliament and Member States. With this public consultation the Commission seeks to obtain a facts-based picture of the EU online gambling market and of the different regulatory models in the Member States

Why do we need a public consultation on online gambling?

Online gambling services are widely offered in the EU and accessible to consumers. This service activity is a growth sector of the gambling market and there is a spiralling demand for these services in Europe. Online gambling opportunities have increased and this is posing societal and public order challenges as well as regulatory and technical ones.

At the same time national regulatory frameworks vary significantly between Member States. Through this consultation the Commission seeks to contribute to the emergence of a legal framework for ononline gambling services in Member Sates which provides greater legal certainty for all stakeholders.

Meanwhile there is the growing presence of illegal gambling sites in the EU operating without any license; consumers search across borders for the most competitive online gambling services and they are easily attracted by these sophisticated illegal offers. Ultimately, the objectives of the consultation are to achieve a market for online gambling services that is well-regulated for all.

What does the public consultation cover?

The consultation embraces all relevant public interest objectives that this service activity touches upon. More specifically, the consultation seeks to exhaust a number of key questions on:

• Definition and organisation of online gambling services:

1) advantages and/or difficulties associated with the co-existence in the EU of the different national systems and practices for licensing of online gambling services; 2) gambling services that consumers can access, such as sports betting services, casino games or promotional games and 3) the various platforms that may be used such as internet or mobile applications;

• Rules and practices relating to services performed and/or used by online gambling service providers, such as sales promotions, advertising, online pop-ups, internet service providers, data storage centres, customer identification, and regulations for payment systems and player accounts;
• Consumer protection: 1) information on, and treatment of, problem gambling and gambling addiction; 2) the effectiveness of national measures pursued to protect players and prevent or limit such problems, such as age limits, bans on use of credit of self-limitation systems; and 3) protection of minors and other vulnerable groups;
• Public order: best practices to detect and prevent fraud, money laundering and other crimes;
• Financing of benevolent and public interest activities and events: the differing systems of revenue channelling for public interest activities and mechanisms for redistributing revenues from public and private online gambling services to the benefit of society such as the arts, education or sport;
• Enforcement of applicable laws: 1) regulation and supervision of online gambling services; 2) cross-border cooperation between Member States; and 3) efficiency of existing blocking systems, such as payment blocking or domain name filtering.

What are the next steps?

The Commission is seeking to collect detailed information and data on the key policy issues. This public consultation is an invitation to all relevant stakeholders to express their views, share their expertise and contribute available data. Contributions are therefore welcome from citizens, gambling operators, providers of media-related services, data storage centres, internet service providers, payment service providers, sports event organisers, beneficiaries of good causes and public authorities as well as other interested stakeholders.

The public consultation is open until 31 July 2011. The contributions received will identify the necessity and the kind of EU follow-up action that is required in the field.

Website:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/gambling_en.htm

The European Parliament is struggling to forge a united position on a food labelling law ahead of a crucial vote this month. MEPs have been re-running many of the same arguments that paralysed the Parliament last year during the first reading of the food labelling regulation. Conflict over amendments prompted a decision this week to delay the vote in the Parliament's environment, health and food safety committee by one week until 19 April.

Renate Sommer, a German centre-right MEP who is drafting the Parliament's position, is urging her fellow MEPs to unite behind her favoured approach, where calorie content would be the only mandatory nutritional information to appear on the front of food packaging: "That and the use-by-date is what the consumer is really interested in," Sommer told European Voice.

But an alliance of Socialists, European United Left and Green MEPs, aided by some Liberals, is battling for salt, sugar, fat and saturated fat to be included on the front of packaging too, with further information on the back of the pack on elements such as transfats.

Glenis Willmott, a UK Socialist MEP, said: "If we are really serious about obesity, heart disease and diabetes …and the costs of treating those diseases, then people have to have [nutritional] information in a readily-accessible form." Putting such information on the front of packs would help people make healthy choices, she said.

Clashes

Whatever the Parliament agrees, MEPs are likely to clash with European health ministers, who are reluctant to specify where nutritional information should appear on food packaging, other than a demand that all values should be in the same field of vision. National diplomats are uneasy with the Parliament's emphasis on front-of-pack labels, fearing that it would be impossible for legal experts to agree, for example, on a satisfactory definition of the ‘front' of a milk carton.

MEPs are also at odds over plans to oblige the food industry to label more products with information about the country of origin. Currently, only a few products – including beef, honey, fresh fruit and vegetables – carry country-of-origin labels. The Parliament voted last year to extend this to cover all fresh meat, prepared meals with meat or fish as the main ingredient, and dairy products – an approach that has been opposed by the food industry.

Sommer is opposed to additional country-of-origin labels without a detailed impact assessment, but she may lose this argument in the face of strong support from other groups.

Here too the Parliament is likely to find difficulties in reconciling its views with member states. Sommer warned that if the Parliament demands too much, negotiations with EU ministers could collapse, citing the example of the ‘novel food' discussions, where three years of work went to waste when Parliament and Council failed last month to agree on cloning. "Everybody is afraid" of a repeat of the novel foods failure, she said. "The Council is afraid of that. The Commission is afraid of that…Then we would have to wait another ten years for a food labelling regulation."

Willmott said that this view was "nonsense", because the Council is in favour of country-of-origin labelling for fresh meat. "People have the right to know where their meat comes from…if it is not too difficult for beef, so why should it be too difficult for pork, or lamb or other meats?"

Discussions on the food labelling regulation are entering the endgame, after more than three years of twists and turns in the EU legislative and lobbying labyrinth, and hindered by Lisbon treaty delays. Negotiations between the Council and Parliament are to begin in May, but nobody is expecting a quick agreement.

The Customs Department wishes to draw your attention to COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 284/2011 of 22 March 2011 laying down specific conditions and detailed procedures for the import of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (attached).

This Regulation applies to the import of polyamide and of melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

In particular, your attention is drawn to the following requirements:

Importers or their representatives shall notify Customs authorities at least two working days in advance of the estimated date and time of physical arrival of consignments originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong (article 4).

The release for free circulation of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong is subject to the presentation to the customs authorities of the declaration set out in the Annex duly completed as provided for in Article 3.  This requires that the importer submit to Customs for each consignment a declaration, duly completed, confirming that it meets the requirements concerning the release of primary aromatic amines and formaldehyde laid down in Part A of Annex V and in Section A of Annex II to Directive 2002/72/EC respectively.  A model of the declaration is set out in the Annex to the Regulation. The declaration is to be drawn up in Maltese or English and shall be accompanied by a laboratory report providing information as required by article 3.

For more information kindly contact Mr Mario Brincat-Customs EU  

What does the CE marking really mean? Many products placed on the EU market have the CE marking affixed to them. This marking is the visible symbol showing that the manufacturer has taken all necessary measures to ensure that the product complies with the applicable safety legislation. It plays a crucial part in the New Legislative Framework for the EU internal market for goods, which entered into force at the beginning of 2010.

The Campaign

The European Commission is carrying out a campaign on the CE marking to raise awareness and understanding of the meaning behind the marking and the purpose of its use. It is primarily directed at SMEs, business and professional associations, the media, consumers and the general public.

Seminar

As part of this pan-European campaign, a seminar will be held on the 29th April 2011 at the InterContinental Malta, St. Julian's.

Registration

If you wish to attend, please send an email to by not later then the 25th April 2011. Participation is FREE of charge.

Trading Licences (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations, 2011

2. For sub-regulation (4) of regulation 34 of the principal  regulations, there shall be substituted the following:

"(4) New licences for a commercial fair and licences already issued for a commercial fair shall be valid for seven consecutive days, including Sundays and Public Holidays, except Good Friday. Any commercial fair organised for more than seven consecutive days shall require a separate licence:

Provided that licenses issued consecutively for the same commercial fair in the same premises shall not exceed thirty days.".

3. For paragraph 07 in Part II of the Third Schedule to the principal regulations, there shall be substituted the following.

"07. Commercial Fair Activities.

In relation to any premises in respect of which a licence from the Trade Licensing Unit has been issued for the organisation of commercial fairs or in relation to a commercial fair requiring a permit, in both cases selling by retail or exhibit of goods, the fair may open for business between 9.00a.m. and 11.00p.m. on any day except Good Friday.".

GRTU has asked the Ministry for Finance to take strong action in agreement with the Police and the Ministry responsible for transport and Transport Malta to stop the abuse by operators who skillfully avoid the scanning equipment at the Hal Far Groupage Complex to distribute suspect imports.

These are operators who, in spite of their obligation at law, never ever turn up at the Hal Far Complex. Why have an expensive scanning equipment that safeguards us all from contraband when it is the choice of the importer whether to go through the scan or not? The honest trader has no problem and go through but the others simply chose not to turn up. Do you have to be an Einstein to know why?

GRTU seeks action. Contraband is here and visible. The gate is open. No wonder thieves are around. Action please!

This is a situation that keeps getting worse. It is a very sad chapter in Malta's political history that in 2011 the malady of waiting for Government bureaucrats and Ministers to decide has gone deeper, much deeper. Business and a modern economy cannot work with this kind of lethargy.

GRTU said it, and will say it again most forcefully, that those in Cabinet, in high positions within the Authorities and top civil servants who are incapable of coming to a decision soundly and in the right time, have one way forward – Out – Get out! They should resign or be thrown out. Their cost to the economy and to business by their indecision and procrastination is too large to contain.

Pushing Ministers and top bureaucrats to decide on issues that really matter for business has become GRTU's major task. We do it and we do it gladly, and we do it better than all, and whilst for most of the times we get excellent results, as luckily the majority of senior officers want to work and are capable to decide, however with others who hold tight to their methods as they happen to be holier than others, we mess it up badly. These are heads who are bigger than others. With these we fail.

GRTU continues to have faith in Lawrence Gonzi  but if he does not put his foot down and appears to be doing so strongly and without respect to friends, allies and to favourite sons, then he and his Government  have a really, really serious problem. We say it loud and clear.

".eu" has become the 9th biggest top-level domain (TLD) on the Internet, the 5^th most popular country code top-level domain worldwide and ranks in 4^th place in Europe. Having a ".eu" domain is especially beneficial to small and medium-sized companies as it raises their profile on European markets by providing them with a pan-European identity on the Internet. Registrations for a ".eu" domain have grown every year since its introduction and now reach almost 3.5 million, making it the ninth most popular top-level domain in the world.

A ".eu" web presence is instantly recognised by potential customers that may otherwise be suspicious of a company with a country domain name they do not recognise. Examples of SMEs taking up a ".eu" domain include:

many small local companies in the Italian region of Tuscany

a Lithuanian company installing swimming pools

a British events marketing company

a Dutch children's clothing shop.

".eu" is not only easy to register, but also easy to manage in case of problems, as it operates in any of the 23 official languages of the EU.

The largest take-up for ".eu" is in Germany (31% of total ".eu" domains), The Netherlands (13%), the United Kingdom (10%), France (9%) and Poland (6%). More recently, the use of ".eu" has been growing faster in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia.

Background

".eu" first opened on 7 December 2005 to holders of prior rights including trade mark holders and public bodies. Since early April 2006, registration has been open to all EU residents and organisations established in the EU. Management of the ".eu" registry (the database holding all .eu registrations) is entrusted to EURid, an independent non-profit-making organisation. By its first anniversary, 2.5 million ".eu" domain names had been registered, another 300,000 domain names were added in 2007. In 2009, registration reached the three million mark.

Live tracking of ".eu" statistics is available at:
http://www.eurid.eu/en/about/facts-figures/statistics

One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that corporate governance, until now usually based on self-regulation, was not as effective as it could have been. It is important that companies are better run. If companies are better run, not only is a future crisis less likely but they should also be more competitive.

The European Commission has launched a public consultation that addresses the ways in which corporate governance of European companies can be improved. Corporate governance is traditionally defined as the system by which companies are managed and controlled. The consultation covers a number of issues such as how to improve the diversity and functioning of the boards of directors and the monitoring and enforcement of existing national corporate governance codes, and how to enhance the engagement of shareholders. The deadline for submitting contributions in response to the consultation is 22 July 2011.

What does the public consultation cover?

The lessons of the crisis will eventually lead to better supervision of financial institutions, stronger banks and effective resolution systems for failing institutions. As part of a longer term review of the corporate governance framework of companies at large, this public consultation will focus on how companies, not just financial institutions, work.  There are a number of findings that indicate that there is room for improvement in different areas of corporate governance, such as diversity in boards, shareholder engagement and the quality of corporate governance statements.

Thus, the Green Paper aims to launch a general debate on a number of issues such as:

Board of directors: questions addressed  refer to their effective functioning and ensuring they are composed of a mixed group of people, e.g. by enhancing gender diversity, a variety of professional backgrounds and skills as well as nationalities.  Functioning of boards, namely in terms of availability and time commitment of directors are also under scrutiny as well as questions on risk management and directors' pay..

how to enhance shareholders' involvement on corporate governance issues and encourage more of them to take an interest in sustainable returns and longer term performance, but also how to enhance the protection of minority shareholders. It also seeks to understand whether there is a need for shareholder identification, i.e. for a mechanism to allow issuers to see who their shareholders are, and for an improved framework for shareholder cooperation.

how to improve monitoring and enforcement of the existing national corporate governance codes in order to provide investors and the public with meaningful information. Companies who don't comply with national corporate governance recommendations have to explain why they deviate from them. Too often, this doesn't occur. The Green Paper asks whether there should be more detailed rules on these explanations and whether national monitoring bodies should have more say on companies' corporate governance statements.

The Green Paper is accessible at:
 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2011/corporate-governance-framework_en.htm