Thus, the EFTA Court acknowledged in Ladbrokes that the EEA State where the services are provided has a right to require possession of a new licence even if the service provider already holds a licence in its home state. It added, however, that national measures must not be excessive in relation to the aims pursued. This would be the case if the requirements to which the issue of a licence is subject coincided with the requirements of the home state.
The CJEU has similarly ruled in Stoß and Others that a duty mutually to recognise authorisations issued by the various Member States cannot exist having regard to the margin of discretion recognized to Member States and the absence of any EU harmonisation in this matter.
This line of case-law has been recently developed by the Court in the context of the specific features of online gambling, referred to in the previous section.
In the absence of sectoral harmonisation of legislation at European Union level, the mere fact that an operator lawfully offers services in one Member State, in which it is established and is in principle already subject to statutory conditions and controls on the part of the competent authorities of that State, cannot be regarded as a sufficient assurance that national consumers will be protected against the risks of fraud and crime. The Court has justified such exemption to the rule in view of:
the substantial differences between the objectives pursued and the levels of protection sought by the legislation of the various Member States; and
the difficulties liable to be encountered in such a context by the authorities of the Member State of establishment in assessing the professional qualities and integrity of operator.
Moreover, the mere fact that a Member State has opted for a system of protection which differs from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the need for and proportionality of the relevant provisions, which must be assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and the level of protection which they seek to ensure.
The Court has also accepted that various Member States do not necessarily have the same technical means available for controlling online games of chance, and do not necessarily make the same choices in this respect. The fact that a particular level of protection of consumers against fraud by an operator may be achieved in a particular Member State by applying sophisticated control and monitoring techniques does not permit the conclusion that the same level of protection can be achieved in other Member States which do not have those technical means available or have made different choices. A Member State may legitimately wish, moreover, to monitor an economic activity which is carried on in its territory. That would be impossible if it had to rely on checks done by the authorities of another Member State using regulatory systems outside its control.87
Consequently, the case-law which states that it is not compatible with Article 56 TFEU to make a provider subject to restrictions for safeguarding the public interest in so far as that interest is already safeguarded in the Member State where he is established does not apply, in the present state of development of European Union law, in a field such as that of games of chance. This area is not harmonised at European Union level, and the Member States have a wide discretion in relation to the objectives they wish to pursue and the level of protection they seek.