Pradėti blokuoti nelegaliai veiklą Lietuvoje vykdančių azartinių lošimų įmonių tinklalapiai

http://i.imgur.com/uvSZ0zY.jpg

Išmaniųjų telefonu naršyklės laukelyje suvedę lažybų bendrovių unibet.lt, betway.com ar williamhill.com adresus mobilius duomenis naudojantys vartotojai nuo sausio 20 dienos negali pasiekti šių lažybų bendrovių tinklalapių. Jų veikla draudžiama dėl įsigaliojusių Azartinių lošimų įstatymo pataisų.

http://www.15min.lt/mokslasit/straipsnis/technologijos/pradeti-blokuoti-nelegaliai-veikla-lietuvoje-vykdanciu-azartiniu-losimu-imoniu-tinklalapiai-646-571157

Ateity turbut bus uzsimota ir pries piratu puslapius. Bei visokius propagandinius su .ru domenais :unsure:

Juokinga, kai Uber, kuris yra registruotas JAV, priimamas išskėstomis rankomis, o kiti užsienio ar net ES šalyse registruoti subjektai - blokuojami. :) Panašu, kad tik laiko klausimas, kada visi mokesčių mokėtojai mokės baudas už rinkėjų ir politikų glušas galvas.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/09/eu-court-italy-can-t-block-online-gambling-16360.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0345

5.3. Restrictions on the free movement of services and the freedom of establishment

 

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU require the abolition of all restrictions on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services – even if those restrictions apply without distinction to national providers of services and to those from other Member States – if they are liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the activities of a service provider established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services.[38]

 

National rules in the area of gambling constitute an obstacle to the freedoms guaranteed by the internal market freedoms if they:

 

· ban the exercise of an economic activity in the area of gambling;[39]

 

· confer exclusive rights to organise and promote games of chance on a single operator;[40]

 

· make the exercise of an economic activity subject to a licensing requirement.[41]

 

The freedom to provide services involves the freedom of the provider to offer and supply services to recipients in a Member State other than that in which the provider is established, and also the freedom to receive or to benefit as recipient from the services offered by a provider in another Member State. The freedom to provide services therefore is for the benefit of both providers and recipients of services.[42]

 

Restrictions on freedom of establishment for nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State are prohibited by Article 49 TFEU, including restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries.

 

As regards the delimitation of the scope, respectively, of the principles of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment, it is necessary to establish whether or not the economic operator is established in the Member State in which it offers the service in question.

<...>

 

Concrete examples of national rules in the gambling sector which constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services and/or the freedom of establishment, as interpreted by the courts, are:

 

· the ban on the importation of lottery advertisements and tickets into a Member State with a view to the participation by residents of that State in a lottery operated in other Member States;[48]

 

· the prohibition of promoting gambling organised legally in other Member States and of unlicensed gambling nationally thus ensuring that national consumers only take part in gambling in the context of the national licensing system;[49]

 

· where a company established in a Member State pursues the activity of collecting bets through the intermediary of an organisation of agencies established in another Member State, any restrictions of the activities of those agencies would constitute such an a obstacle[50]

 

· the conferral of exclusive rights on a single operator (set up either under public or private law) to organise and promote games of chance, and whereby all other operators, including operators established in another Member State, are prohibited from offering, over the internet, services falling within the scope of that regime in the territory of the first Member State;[51]

 

· the prohibition on individuals to connect by internet from their home to a bookmaker established in another Member State;[52]

 

· the limitation of the number of licences or operators;[53]

 

· the prohibition of activities in the betting and gaming sector without prior authorisation from the administrative authorities;[54]

 

· restricting the right to operate games of chance or gambling solely to casinos in permanent or temporary gaming areas created by decree-law;[55]

 

· treating foreign lotteries differently for tax purposes from national lotteries;[56]

 

· the obligation that persons wishing to operate gaming establishments must adopt the legal form of a public limited company, which prevents, inter alia, operators who are natural persons and undertakings which, in the country in which they are established, have chosen another corporate form, from setting up a secondary establishment;[57]

 

· the obligation on persons holding concessions to operate gaming establishments to have their seat in the national territory.[58]

Ironiška, kad lapkričio 21-ąją Arnoldas Dilba Lietuvos vardu pasirašė ES kooperavimosi lošimų srityje agreementą, kuriame nustatomos gairės, kaip reikia elgtis tokiais atvejais, kai yra skirtingi reguliavimai ES šalyse. Aišku, Lietuva už poros mėnesių visgi vis tiek executina įstatymą, kuris prieštarauja prieš kelis mėnesius pasirašytam agreement'ui. Ir kas blogiausia - už šitą marazmą baudas mokės mokesčių mokėtojai, o ne durniai, kurie nusprendė nepaisyt ESTT sprendimų ir nusispjaut ant ES teisės.

P.S. Pasikeiskit DNS serverius į Verisign arba Google Public DNS ir toliau galėsit mėgautis laisvu internetu. :)

EDIT: *facepalm* Pasirodo Lietuva jau buvo įspėta kelis kartus Europos Komisijos dėl šito įstatymo (buvo vos ne tiesiai šviesiai pasakyta, kad jis prieštarauja ES teisei ir esamai teismų praktikai). Ir vis tiek šitas įstatymas buvo priimtas, ignoruojant visus pranešimus iš EK. Jau už šitokia nekompetenciją turi būt taikoma asmeninė atsakomybė! Padaryt klaidų gali visi, bet kai tau tiesiai šviesiai pasakoma, kad tavo įstatymo projektas pažeidžia ES teisę ir tu vis tiek jį priimi. Na čia jau beyond anything... http://www.sorainen.com/UserFiles/File/Publications/article.WOGLR.2014-03-01.eng.vyted.pdf