Supplementary notice: Smoking ban in gaming establishments (25 November 2013)

On 22 November 2013 the Gaming Commission received a letter from the Public Health Minister, Mrs Onkelinx, stating that no amusement machines are to be present in rooms that are also used as smoking rooms.

According to FPS Public Health, the current smoking legislation (Act of 22 December 2009 setting out a general regulation for smoke-free closed rooms/premises accessible to members of the public and for the protection of employees from tobacco smoke and the RD of 28 January establishing the requirements made of smoking ban signs and of the installation of an exhaust system) are now given a restrictive interpretation in respect of the fact that the operators of closed rooms/premises that are accessible to members of the public are permitted to provide a smoking room under certain conditions.
 
This restrictive interpretation by FPS Public Health was confirmed in two court rulings (Criminal Court Oudenaarde on 6 June 2013 and Criminal Court Liège of 8 October 2013).
 
The Gaming Commission wishes it to be known that it is continuing to uphold its position as outlined in its notice dated September 2012 on the smoking ban until the aforesaid rulings take on the effect of res judicata (i.e. until all appeal procedures have been exhausted).
 
Finally, FPS Public Health wishes it to be known that a letter on this matter will be sent out to all licence holders.
 
The judgment of the criminal court of Liège was confirmed by the court of appeal of Liège on 30 September 2014. As the gambling machines were set up in the smoking lounge, the court considers that room as a public space in which smoking is prohibited.
 
On 17 December 2014, the Ghent court of appeal ruled in the case against the Casino Kursaal Oostende concerning the violation of the smoking ban. In that judgment, the court confirmed the judgment of the Bruges court of first instance. The court declares that Article 3 of the law on smoking has been violated because the smoking lounge is a fully fledged gaming hall in which services are offered (therefore, it is no longer a smoking lounge). According to the court, any other interpretation would undermine the smoking ban. The court adds that it is not necessary to refer a question for a preliminary ruling.

Notice: Smoking ban (5 September 2012)

1. Smoking ban legislation

1.1. Act of 22 December 2009
A general smoking ban is imposed per Article 3, §1 of the Act establishing general regulations for a smoking ban in closed spaces accessible to members of the public and the protection of workers against tobacco smoke (hereinafter: the Anti-Tobacco Act)
"Smoking is prohibited in closed spaces that are accessible to members of the public. These places must be kept free from smoke."
The Act provided for a number of exceptions to this general rule. Article 4, §1 of the Anti-Tobacco Act made it possible to establish areas reserved for smokers subject to a series of strict conditions. Article 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act provided for an exception for Class I gaming establishments as defined under Article 28 of the Act of 07 May 1999 on games of chance, gaming establishments and the protection of players in rooms exclusively set aside for games and where beverages may be served [1][1]. Finally, Article 6 prescribes a third exception under which smoking rooms can be installed.
 
1.2. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 March 2011.
In it’s ruling of 15 March 2011, the Constitutional Court dismissed the exceptions prescribed under Articles 4 and 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act[1][2].
The repeal is explained by the fact that the distinction the Act made between restaurant workers (where a general smoking ban was introduced) and workers in licensed beverage establishments was unsustainable, since both worker categories are exposed to health risks arising from smoking. Moreover, the Constitutional Court relied on scientific studies showing that the frequenting of F&B establishments is not seen to diminish in countries that have enacted general smoking bans, but rather that such bans attract a new type of non-smoking clientele. 
A virtually identical line of reasoning is adopted with regard to the exception for Class I gaming establishments:
"Contrary to what the Government Cabinet asserts, the fact that Belgium has just nine Class I gaming establishments alters nothing in respect of this finding [3], given that the scope of the exception has no impact whatsoever on the effects of passive smoking on (workers') health. Neither does the assertion that such establishments are aimed at a specific target audience make any difference as regards the protection of the health of non-smoking workers and customers."
The main objective of the repeal of Article 5 is thus based on concerns regarding the health risk posed to staff. However, the Court did not dismiss the exception prescribed under Article 6 of the Anti-Tobacco Act (installation of smoking rooms) due to these smoking rooms needing to be installed to exclude the risk of passive smoking. The wording of Article 6 shows that F&B staff should not enter the smoking room during opening hours. Only beverages may be taken into this room, as drinks may not be served there.
 
1.3. Conclusion
The only exception permitted to the general smoking ban in places accessible to members of the public is the establishment of a smoking room in compliance with the requirements defined under Article 6 of the Anti-Tobacco Act:
- "The smoking room is not a transit area and must be designed and built so as to reduce the harm of the smoke for non-smokers to the extent possible.
- The smoking room must be clearly identified as a room reserved for smokers and must be indicated by all means that will allow (guests) to find the room. Only beverages may be taken into the smoking room.
- The surface area of the smoking room may not exceed a quarter of the total surface area of the closed room accessible to members of the public.
- The smoking room must be fitted with a smoke exhaust or ventilation system that sufficiently eliminates the smoke.
- The King shall specify supplementary conditions to be met by smoking rooms [4]. These conditionsrelate to the technical requirements of the smoke exhaust system (among other things, the calculation of the air renewal or the air purification rate).
 
As such, there is nothing to stop a gaming establishment from installing smoking rooms. The requirements do not prevent the installation of gaming machines in these smoking rooms, since such machines do not require staff to be present. An interpretative expansion of the Anti-Tobacco Act, which is a specific criminal law, would run counter to the legality principle prescribed under Articles 12 and 14 of the Constitution.
In compliance with Article 6, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Tobacco Act, the surface area of the smoking room is not allowed to exceed a quarter of the total surface area of the closed room accessible to members of the public. Applied to Class I gaming establishments, this provision would mean that the smoking room would be allowed to occupy a maximum 25 % of the surface area of the casino. The Gaming Act defines casinos [1][5] as "establishments where automatic or non-automatic games of chance are operated that have been permitted by the King and where sociocultural activities are organised concurrently, such as performances, exhibitions, assemblies and activities of the F&B industry." In other words, a casino relates to the entire surface area of the building where all manner of activities are organised. If 25 % of this surface area can be legally reserved for a smoking room, in theory it is possible for a quarter of the gaming room to be considered as a smoking room.
Furthermore, one may question whether this smoking room, as envisioned under Article 6 of the Anti-Tobacco Act, can coincide with the concept of a "smoking room" as envisioned under Article 14. As per Article 14, workers are allowed to smoke during working hours in rooms provided for this purpose: "smoking rooms." In this respect, the difference in the translation between the Dutch and French version in the Belgian Official Journal could be significant. Whereas the Dutch text of the Anti-Tobacco Act refers to "De rookkamer, die uitsluitend tot het roken bestemd is […]" (which literally translates as: "a smoking room, which is exclusively intended for smoking"), this part of the sentence is translated into French as: "le fumoir, qui est exclusivement destiné aux fumeurs […]" (in English: "the smoking room, which is exclusively intended for smokers"). The concept of "smokers" is broader than the concept of "smoking." "Smoking" means "being engaged in the act of smoking," whereas "smokers" are not necessarily required to be engaged in the act of smoking at any given time.
If, in compliance with Article 6, the smoking room were allowed to coincide with the smoking room as envisioned under Article 14 of the Anti-Tobacco Act, in theory it would be possible for staff that smoke to be occupied/put to work in smoking rooms without personally being required to be engaged in the act of smoking.
Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that the argumentation developed by the Constitutional Court to repeal the other smoking ban exceptions is driven by the Court's concerns for the health of workers exposed to tobacco smoke.
This is perfectly conducive to the aim of the legislator, who was seeking to exclude service by staff in the smoking room[1][6]:
"The equality of workers implies that it is not permissible to serve beverages or food in the smoking rooms. Otherwise, F&B workers would be required to work in smoke-filled rooms, running contrary to the goal pursued. A solution would thus be to allow customers to take their orders (drinks, food, into the smoking rooms)."
The dismissal of Article 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act does not serve to prevent the installation of a smoking room containing games of chance in gaming establishments in compliance with the requirements prescribed under Article 6. The installation of gaming machines in a smoking room in no way harms the health of non-smoking players or workers.
This finally leaves the question as to whether this argumentation can still be maintained in light of the repeal of certain Articles of the Anti-Tobacco Act (the sole aim of which is to protect workers against tobacco smoke) in establishments that do not use staff (e.g., licensed beverage establishments that are solely operated by their owner(s)).
 
2. Firm implications of the smoking ban for the gambling industry
2.1. Regulatory implications
The smoking ban has a broad impact on existing gaming establishments. Smoking is intrinsically associated with gambling, in much the same way as poker is almost always associated with wearing sunglasses, and table games and slot machines are directly linked to the use of tobacco.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that it is not enough for a player to be allowed to smoke in a separate smoking room where no games have been installed. Players do not want to leave their game and will only participate in a game where they are allowed to smoke at the same time.
The general smoking ban and the repeal of Article 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act[1][7] imply that no games may be installed – according to FPS Public Health – in smoking rooms of the various gaming establishments. Even though Article 6 of the Anti-Tobacco Act does not exclude the establishment of separate smoking rooms where games are installed (cf. supra), FPS Public Health has drawn up an official report further to the installation of such smoking rooms at the casinos of Knokke, Ostend, Chaudfontaine and Dinant[1][8].
In these cases, the reporting officer bases the qualification of the offences on the                  "interpretation following the Parliamentary Questions"[1][9], which is blatantly unconstitutional.
Question no. 397 raised by David Geerts again serves to show that the statutory provision under which only beverages may be taken into a smoking room is interpreted by FPS Public Health in such a way that neither services (a television set is considered as a service, for instance) nor activities (whether this be bingo, a pinball machine, a gaming machine, etc.) are permitted. Yet this is not what the law decrees.
As discussed under item 1.3 above, an analogous application of criminal law is prohibited. Criminal law may neither be interpreted nor expanded. Only the behaviours expressly or implicitly envisaged by the legislator are punishable[1][10]. As such, the phrase "Only beverages may be taken into the smoking room" is to be read as "Beverages may only be taken into the smoking room, but not served by staff," as the only meaning. The sole aim of this provision is to protect workers against tobacco smoke. The absence of gaming machines or games, for instance, does not contribute to the protection of workers' health. Given that these are gaming machines that are centrally controlled, by definition they do not require any form of human intervention during the casino's opening hours.
 
2.2. Budgetary impact
 
2.2.1 Class I gaming establishments
The results of the Class I gaming establishments (casinos) for the time period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 have been compared with the results of the same period in 2011 [1][11]. On games (traditional games and machines) the casinos sustained a total loss of € 4,925,276.04.
Casinos where no machines had been installed in the smoking rooms (cf. infra sub 2.3.) recorded an average loss of 16.08 %, i.e. € 3,073,423. On table games (traditional games), they were seen to take a loss of € 1,925,276.04. For some casinos, this represents a 35 % to 40 % loss in turnover over traditional games.
During the course of the same period, the remuneration of members of staff, who greatly rely on the tips they are given, on average dropped by 20.68 %. As such, the industry is losing its appeal to (potential) employees.
In 2010, gaming establishments employed a total of 2,029 staff, 1,026 of whom worked at Class I gaming establishments or casinos and 1,003 of whom worked at Class II gaming establishments or gaming arcades. Given the significant losses of the gambling industry, many jobs are in jeopardy. The industry is even considering the necessary slashing of 50 % of its workforce.
 
2.2.2 Class II gaming establishments
The implications of the smoking ban are also becoming evident in gaming arcades. The industry is reporting an average 30 % drop in turnover.
 
2.2.3 Class III gaming establishments
Takings on the bingo machines installed in licensed beverage establishments have fallen by 20 % compared with the previous 12-month period. Moreover, these establishments were to discover that the cafe and bar owners who had made the required investments to install a smoking room were being unfairly targeted by the inspection services of FPS Public Health. Official reports were also compiled for such establishments in cases where the operator had installed gaming machines in the smoking room.
 
2.3. Effects on Internet gambling and clandestine industries
The losses recorded by gaming establishments obviously do not imply that players who are smokers gave up on games of chance. The contrary is true, since the loss sustained was largely offset by (legal and illegal) websites and in the clandestine gambling houses. Players who smoke obviously want to continue smoking while playing, and are going in search of new environments where they can continue to do this.
The introduction of a general smoking ban completely undermines the Gaming Commission's channelling policy. This policy is the key goal of the Belgian legislator, and is aimed at ensuring an offering of games of chance in Belgium that is sufficiently broad and appealing whilst being confined and controlled in such a way that players can enjoy their passion for gambling in a safe and controlled environment[1][12].
In conflict with the general goal of the legislator, players who are smokers today prefer an environment conducive to their smoking and playing of games of chance. This type of environment is only found in the family context, or at clandestine establishments. Whereas players who smoke only ever wanted their nicotine fix while gambling, they are now suddenly seen to be creating an illegal environment for themselves, where there is no guaranteed legal protection for players.
The fact that the casinos of the Partouche group set up a smoking room where several machines were installed shows that this is solely to do with the smoking ban, pure and simple. The turnover results[1][13] for machines over the period from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 have risen by 9.42 %[1][14] compared with the previous 12-month period. Other casinos where the general smoking ban was applied without setting up a dedicated smoking room equipped with machines have seen a 16.08% drop in turnover on machines[1][15].
The smoking ban has significantly crippled the Gaming Commission’s fight against clandestine gambling, which can only be effectively counteracted if smokers can both smoke and gamble at gaming establishments. Likewise, the large-scale flight to websites, legal or otherwise, is posing a problem. The Court of Justice[1][16] previously confirmed that, due to the lack of direct contact between the consumer and the operator, online games of chance involve risks of a different nature and of heightened significance compared to the traditional markets for these types of games in terms of potential fraud committed by operators against consumers. If this line of reasoning applies to fraud, it most certainly applies to the protection of players.
Moreover, this very concept of channelling and concern regarding players who smoke and who set out in search of other havens in which to play was the root cause of the exception to Article 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act:
"In compliance with the Royal Decree of 13 December 2005 enacting a smoking ban in public places, the authors are of the opinion that due consideration must be applied to the specific situation of certain establishments such as casinos. A smoking ban in these establishments could prompt players to set up clandestine gambling houses." [1][17]
 
3. Situation abroad [1][18]
 
3.1. General overview
 
3.1.1 The Netherlands
Holland Casino holds the monopoly on games of chance in The Netherlands. A general smoking ban is in place in casinos, but smoking rooms have been set up and equipped with machines. As such, players are permitted to smoke in these smoking rooms while playing the machines.
 
3.1.2 Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, the free market principle applies and the smoking policy does not impose any restrictions. As such, players are allowed to smoke inside all gaming establishments.
 
3.1.3 Germany
In Germany, a limited number of casinos are permitted to operate by way of a licence system. A general smoking ban is in place in these casinos, but the installation of smoking rooms is permitted in certain states (Länder). Some states also allow machines and table games to be set up directly in the smoking room. Specific anti-tobacco regulations specify that the smoking area should always be smaller than the non-smoking area. Non-smokers must not be inconvenienced by tobacco smoke (e.g. when making their way to the exit or when going to the toilet). However, no food may be sold in the smoking areas.
 
3.1.4 Luxembourg
For the time being, just a single licence has been issued in Luxembourg, given the small population volume. However, there is nothing to suggest that more licences will not be issued in the future. In Luxembourg, the smoking ban does not hold any restrictions, allowing people to smoke anywhere in the casino whilst gambling.
 
3.1.5 Switzerland
With the Swiss Casino Association, Switzerland has an oligopoly. No statutory smoking ban currently exists, even though in practice the casinos have dedicated smoking areas where tables and machines are installed. However, some cantons prohibit staff from working in smoking areas. The smoking areas are allowed to occupy a maximum one third of the casino's total surface area.
 
3.1.6 Greece
In compliance with Greek legislation, only a limited number of casino licences have been issued. These casinos are required to pay € 200/m² for the installation of a smoking area. This area is allowed to take up no more than 50 % of the casino's surface area. Machines and table games can be installed in smoking areas.
 
3.1.7 Lithuania
The free market principle in Lithuania allows for tobacco products to be consumed in all casinos without restriction. No smoking ban applies.
 
3.1.8 Estonia
Here too the free market principle applies, but there are regulations governing the consumption of tobacco. Smoking areas are designated where players can play the machines and the tables, but no meals or drinks may be served in these areas. Bars must be located in non-smoking areas.
 
3.1.9 Sweden
In Sweden there is a monopoly that implements an absolute smoking ban. Only small "smoking cabins" are allowed. No food or drinks can be taken into these cabins.
 
3.1.10. Denmark
As is the case in Sweden, Denmark has an absolute smoking ban but allows an unlimited number of smoking cabins to be erected that only open on one side, thus allowing customers to freely make their way to table games and machines. A limited number of gaming establishment licences are issued.
 
3.1.11. Hungary
In Hungary too a limited number of licences are issued. The consumption of tobacco is not subject to any restrictions.
 
3.1.12. Serbia
The same applies to Serbia. The number of licences is limited. Even though Serbia has a general smoking ban in force, the ban does not apply to gaming arcades or casinos. The ban applies only to restaurants where smokers and non-smokers must be separated.
 
3.1.13.Poland
In Poland too, only a limited number of licences are issued. In practice, casinos allocate smoking areas where machines and table games can be installed directly. Smoking cabins can also be set up in non-smoking areas.
 
3.1.14. Romania
In Romania the law does not limit the number of gaming establishments, and there are no restrictions when it comes to the use of tobacco.
 
3.1.15. Finland
Finland has a monopoly that enforces an absolute smoking ban. However, smoking cabins can be installed, but no beverages are to be consumed inside these cabins.
 
3.1.16. Austria
Austria has a monopoly regime combined with a limited number of licences. A regulatory policy on smoking allows for smoking areas to be set up where machines and table games may be installed. Smoking areas must not be bigger than non-smoking areas.

3.1.17. Portugal
Portuguese legislation has created a state monopoly. Through this monopoly, the state awards a limited number of licences to operators or private casinos. A smoking ban is in place, but allows for smoking areas equipped with tables and machines. At least one third of the casino's surface area must be reserved for non-smokers. A study has shown that table games in non-smoking areas account for just 7 % to 10 % of total revenues. Machines installed in non-smoking areas bring in 26 % to 30 % less than those in smoking areas. That said, casinos are required to install dedicated exhaust systems.
 
3.1.18. Italy
In Italy the handful of licensed gaming establishments have put in place a smoking ban that allows for smoking areas containing machines to be set up.
 
3.1.19. France
Here too, the number of gaming establishments operating under licence is limited. A smoking ban exists at these establishments, but open "smoking terraces" are allowed. Games may be installed on these terraces under strict conditions, but in practice most of the "smoking terraces" do not have any games.
 
3.1.20. Spain
In Spain, a limited number of licences are issued. No restrictions exist on the use of tobacco.
 
3.1.21. Slovenia
Finally, Slovenia issues only a limited number of licences. Gaming establishments are subject to a smoking ban, but guests can smoke inside "smoking cabins." However, they are unable to gamble inside the smoking rooms.
 
3.2. Conclusion
Fourteen of the 21 countries reviewed have regulations in place governing the use of tobacco, all of which allow for dedicated smoking spaces to be set up inside gaming establishments. Seven of the countries under review have no restrictions on the use of tobacco. Just three countries prohibit games of chance in smoking areas. In over 75 % of cases (16 countries out of 21), table games and machines are permitted in smoking areas.
Some countries have also enacted other measures to compensate for the loss of revenues following the introduction of a smoking ban. For example, France reduced the state tax levied on the gross margin[1][19] on games of chance.
According to FPS Public Health, Belgium – a country that permits smoking rooms where no games whatsoever may be operated –– has among the strictest legislation in Europe. Since our neighbouring countries have implemented less strict bans, a loss of clientele (to the benefit of gaming establishments in border regions, not to mention Internet and clandestine establishments) and a downsizing of staff numbers seems to be inevitable unless the necessary short-term measures are taken.
 
4. Proposal from the Gaming Commission
 
4.1. General points
In order to offset the loss incurred by what are chiefly the Class I and II gaming establishments, emergency measures must be introduced. Unlike the other gaming establishment classes, the operation of games of chance is their principal activity.
First and foremost the reintroduction of the exception for gaming establishments within the scope of application of the Anti-Tobacco Act (indefinitely) offers the only legally sound solution to this problem.
Additionally, a simple confirmation from the Gaming Commission would suffice for it to be permissible for games to be installed in smoking rooms provided no interventions from members of staff are required in these smoking rooms during the opening hours of the gaming establishment (Classes I, II, III and IV). Any other interpretations of the Anti-Tobacco Act are patently unconstitutional and consequently prohibited. Only this interpretation is wholly conducive to the intentions of the legislator, i.e. to avoid players who smoke seeking refuge in clandestine gambling houses. Moreover, the appeal of these gambling houses will generate a considerable amount of added workload for the police and the Gaming Commission, and law enforcement will require further investment.
 
4.2. Class I gaming establishments
Furthermore, and in the event that FPS Public Health refuses to accept the above contention – which in this case is patently unconstitutional, one could envisage the provision of financial compensation for the loss incurred by the industry. Given that a strict legal basis has been devised in Belgium for the operation of games of chance, the aim of the legislator was also to create a framework that would subject the operators of games of chance to strict operating rules in return for professional security and the guarantee of reasonable profits[1][20]. In other words, the legal gambling industry must remain profitable for its continued existence.
 
At any rate, financial compensation must be envisaged in the event direct table games are not permitted inside smoking rooms. The loss of smoking customers on the tables is directly responsible for the loss of tips for croupiers. As previously explained, these tips constitute a significant portion of staff's take-home pay. A drop in these revenues inevitably goes hand-in-hand with the loss of appeal of these gaming establishments as potential employers. Only lowering the gross margin and radically reducing payroll costs can avoid the slashing of staff numbers.
 
4.3. Class II gaming establishments
Similarly, in Class II gaming establishments or gaming arcades, a smoking room equipped with machines may be fitted provided it does not exceed 25 % of the total surface area. Here too, any other interpretation of the Anti-Tobacco Act runs counter to the constitutional legality principle.
 
4.4. Class III gaming establishments
This category has not been elaborated in the present notice, since games of chance operated inside licensed beverage establishments constitute an ancillary activity in regards to the main object, which is to serve beverages.
For the sake of completeness, we refer to the observation set forth under item 1.3, which established that the main objective of the Anti-Tobacco Act was to protect staff from the effects of tobacco smoke. Evidently, this goal cannot be applied only to licensed beverage establishments employing staff.
Furthermore, and as a final element, official reports are also noticeably compiled against licensed beverage establishments due to the fact that they have gaming machines set up in the smoking room. As specified repeatedly on previous occasions, the expansive analogous interpretation of the Anti-Tobacco Act by FPS Public Health is unconstitutional.
 
4.5. Class IV gaming establishments
For Class IV gaming establishments, the line of reasoning is analogous to the one adopted for Class III gaming establishments.
 
 
 
 

[1][1] Articles 4 and 5 of the Anti-Tobacco Act have been supplemented with an additional paragraph pursuant to the Act of 22 December 2009 amending the Act of 22 December 2009 (note from the translator: this does not sound quite right: "Les articles 4 et 5 de la loi anti-tabac ont été complétés par un alinéa supplémentaire par la loi du 22 décembre 2009 modifiant la loi du 22 décembre 2009" > the Act of 22 Dec 2009 amending the same Act of 22 Dec 2009?) establishing general regulations for the smoking ban in closed spaces accessible to members of the public and the protection of workers from tobacco smoke, worded as follows: "The exception prescribed under paragraph 1 shall apply until 1 July 2014. However, by Decree conferred by the Government Cabinet, and further to consultation with the industry, the King shall be free to terminate this exception from 1 January 2012."
[1][2] by extension, Article 11, 3° was also repealed.
[1][3] the finding that the exception to the general smoking ban affects the protection of the health of other customers and of workers, both in the gaming establishments concerned as well as in licensed beverage establishments.
[1][4] The Royal Decree of 28 January 2010 prescribing the conditions on smoking ban signage and the installation of ventilation systems.
[1][5] Act of 07 May 1999 on games of chance, bets, gaming establishments and the protection of players (hereinafter referred to as: the “Gaming Act”).
[1][6] DOC 52, 1768/005, p. 11.
[1][7] And initially by the introduction of an end date for the exception provision
[1][8] Official report (record) of caution number: 8001-11-0141A; Crime Report Sheet number: 8001-12-0079P-CP; Crime Report Sheet number: 4010-11-0079P-CP; Crime Report Sheet number: 5001-12-0007.
[1][9] Not attached to the official report/crime report sheet, this is undoubtedly a Parliamentary question and reply concerning the smoking rooms, posed by MP David Geerts (SP.A) on 18 March 2010, Bulletin no.: B104 – Written question and reply no.: 0397 – Legislature 52 (question without reply).
[1][10] Chris VAN DEN WYNGAERT, Strafrecht en Strafprocesrecht in hoofdlijnen (The main thrusts of criminal law and criminal procedure law), Maklu, 1999, Antwerp, p.73.
[1][11] These results are attached as Annex I to the present notice.
[1][12] DOC 52 1992/001, p. 4 and p. 5.
[1][13] Annex I
[1][14] € 12,185,989.32 (1 January 2012 - 30 June 2012) against € 13,334,136,28 (1 January 2012 - 30 June 2012) = + € 1,148,146.96 , i.e. + 9.42 %.
[1][15] € 19,111,120.00 (1 January 2012 - 30 June 2012) against € 16,037,423.00 (1 January 2012 - 30 June 2012) = € - 3,073,423.00 , i.e. – 16.08 %.
[1][16] Ruling returned by the Court of Justice dated 08 September 2009, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd against Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, C-42/07.
[1][17] DOC 52 1768/004, p. 7
[1][18] The data was derived from a survey conducted by ECA (European Casino Association) in December 2011.
[1][20] Parl. doc.; Senate, 1997-1998, no. 1-419/17, 2.1.


[1][19] Gross margin or gross product of casino games = the difference between the stakes put in by the gamblers and the winnings paid out by the casino