EUROMAT challenges Croatia’s unnotified gambling law

The European Gambling and Amusement Federation (EUROMAT) has officially submitted an objection to the European Commission concerning Croatia’s recent amendments to its Gambling Act (PZ_42). According to EUROMAT, Croatia’s failure to notify the European Commission under the TRIS procedure—an obligation under Directive (EU) 2015/1535—constitutes a breach of EU law.

The Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) procedure ensures that Member States inform the European Commission and other EU countries of any technical regulation that could affect the internal market. This includes legislation that may restrict market access or impact the provision of services across borders. Croatia’s decision to bypass this notification process has raised serious legal and procedural concerns within the European regulatory landscape.

What are the amendments to the Croatian Gambling Act?

The proposed amendments to Croatia’s Gambling Act introduce significant regulatory changes. These include:

• Mandatory player identification before entering gambling venues
• A national self-exclusion register for individuals with gambling problems
• Stricter advertising controls aimed at protecting minors and vulnerable persons
• Detailed geographical limitations on where gambling venues can operate
• Prohibitions on operating on certain days
• Substantial increases in licensing fees and taxation

Each of these changes is likely to have an impact not only on domestic operators, but also on foreign service providers who may wish to enter or remain in the Croatian gambling market. As such, under Directive 2015/1535, these provisions qualify as “technical regulations” and should be subject to notification before being adopted.

Why notification under EU law matters

EU Member States are legally obliged to notify the European Commission of draft legislation that could restrict the internal market. The objective is to prevent the creation of regulatory barriers that would hinder the free movement of goods and services—a fundamental principle of the EU Single Market.

The notification procedure allows the European Commission and other Member States to examine whether proposed legislation is compatible with EU law. If a Member State fails to notify, and the legislation is implemented regardless, it risks serious legal consequences. These may include:

• Suspension of the law's application
• Infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission
• Legal challenges by affected businesses or trade associations

Croatia’s failure to notify is particularly troubling given its history. In 2014, the country did notify a version of its gambling legislation, which was subsequently withdrawn following criticism and scrutiny from the European Commission. Additionally, a 2023 notification by Croatia affected the amusement sector. These precedents demonstrate that Croatian authorities are aware of their obligations under EU law.

EUROMAT’s formal response and legal concerns

In its complaint, EUROMAT emphasized the potential consequences of ignoring the EU’s regulatory framework. The organization, which represents the interests of the land-based gaming and amusement industries across Europe, expressed deep concern over Croatia’s disregard for the TRIS notification system.

Jason Frost, President of EUROMAT, issued a statement underscoring the importance of legal compliance for market stability. “If the Commission is serious about strengthening the Internal Market,” he said, “then it has to ensure that Member States respect the law.”

Frost reminded the Commission of its previous intervention in 2014, when Croatia was compelled to withdraw its gambling legislation after scrutiny. He called for similar decisive action now, arguing that legal certainty is critical for companies seeking to invest and operate across Europe. According to Frost, allowing Member States to ignore their obligations under EU law could “set a very concerning precedent.”

Support from within Croatia’s gaming industry

EUROMAT’s position has been echoed by the Croatian Gaming Association, which represents industry stakeholders at the national level. Filip Jelavic, the Association’s General Secretary, voiced strong criticism of the government’s approach, calling the legal changes “far reaching and disruptive.”

“It is inconceivable,” Jelavic stated, “that any European Member State could be allowed to introduce such sweeping regulatory reforms without following the correct legal procedures. We are calling on the Croatian Government to act responsibly and follow the law.”

Broader implications for the European gambling sector

The dispute surrounding Croatia’s Gambling Act raises larger questions about the consistency of regulatory processes within the European Union. While individual Member States maintain the authority to regulate gambling within their jurisdictions, they are bound by EU treaties and directives to uphold principles such as transparency, non-discrimination, and market access.

The TRIS system is designed specifically to uphold these values. It provides a structured mechanism for cooperation and scrutiny, allowing for regulatory alignment and the prevention of trade barriers. By failing to notify, Croatia not only undermines this system but also creates legal uncertainty for businesses—particularly foreign operators who may now face unfair competition or compliance risks.

Furthermore, EUROMAT’s objection highlights the increasing tension between national sovereignty and EU oversight in the realm of gambling regulation. While Member States retain discretion to regulate gambling as they see fit, this must occur within the legal framework of the Single Market. Disregarding that framework jeopardizes trust and investment in the industry.

Legal remedies and possible next steps

Should the European Commission determine that Croatia has indeed failed in its legal obligations, it may launch infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This process begins with a formal notice to the Member State, followed by an opinion, and potentially leads to a referral to the European Court of Justice if the issue remains unresolved.

Additionally, the Commission has the authority to request the suspension of the contested national law until proper notification procedures are completed. Companies affected by the legislation may also bring legal challenges at the national level, citing non-compliance with EU law as the basis for invalidating the measure.

Importance of compliance for market stability

This incident serves as a clear reminder of the importance of legal certainty and procedural transparency within the EU’s internal market. Regulatory changes—particularly in sensitive sectors such as gambling—must be carefully scrutinized for their potential to disrupt cross-border trade, limit market access, or introduce discriminatory practices.

Failure to respect the TRIS notification obligation not only endangers the legitimacy of national laws but also weakens the integrity of the European regulatory system. It is essential that Member States uphold their responsibilities to ensure a level playing field for all operators, both domestic and foreign.

A call for responsible governance

As the European Commission evaluates EUROMAT’s objection, the spotlight remains on Croatia’s government. Observers from across the EU will be watching to see whether the Commission acts to uphold its own standards and ensure that notification procedures are not treated as optional.

If Member States are permitted to implement significant laws without adhering to EU processes, the cohesion of the internal market could suffer lasting damage. Legal predictability, regulatory cooperation, and mutual trust—foundations of the European project—must be preserved.

Conclusion

The situation surrounding Croatia’s Gambling Act is not merely a national issue—it is a European one. The integrity of the internal market, the legal obligations of Member States, and the rights of businesses all hinge on a robust and functioning notification procedure. As the Commission considers EUROMAT’s complaint, its decision will set an important precedent for how the EU handles future breaches of regulatory protocol in the gambling sector and beyond.

FAQs

What is the TRIS procedure?
The TRIS (Technical Regulation Information System) procedure ensures that EU Member States notify the European Commission of draft technical regulations that could affect the internal market.

Why is EUROMAT objecting to Croatia’s gambling law?
EUROMAT claims that Croatia failed to notify the European Commission about its new gambling law amendments, violating EU law.

What does the Croatian Gambling Act include?
The act includes player ID requirements, advertising restrictions, a self-exclusion register, higher taxes, and venue location rules.

Why is notification important under EU law?
Notification allows the European Commission to evaluate whether proposed national laws conflict with EU principles like market access and non-discrimination.

What happens if a Member State fails to notify a law?
The law could be suspended, and the European Commission may initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State.

Has Croatia previously notified gambling laws?
Yes, Croatia notified similar laws in 2014 and 2023. In 2014, the law was withdrawn after the Commission's scrutiny.

Who is Jason Frost?
Jason Frost is the President of EUROMAT, a European organization representing the land-based gaming and amusement industries.

What is the role of the European Commission in this matter?
The Commission oversees compliance with EU law and can intervene if a Member State fails to follow required procedures.

What does the Croatian Gaming Association say?
The association opposes the unnotified changes and urges the Croatian government to act responsibly and respect EU procedures.

Could this situation impact other EU countries?
Yes, if unchallenged, it could set a precedent allowing other Member States to bypass EU procedures, threatening the Single Market.