This follows the Court of Appeal in Jönköping recently slashing the figure handed down despite acknowledging “a serious violation,” it said that the size of penalty fee should be determined based on the seriousness of the violation, instead of being based on the companies’ turnover.
This dates back to April 2019, when AG Communications and Genesis Global were found to have had a lack of connection to the Spelpaus.se national self exclusion register for 33 and nine days, respectively.
The former, which provides games via its flagship Karamba casino as well as ten other brands, received a penalty fee of SEK 3m (£247,000) as well as a warning into future conduct, after the Spelinspektionen was contacted by individuals who had been able to play on its brands, despite having registered for self-exclusion
Furthermore, Genesis Global, which counts Casino Joy and Vegas Hero as part of its stable, was found to have committed similar offences and received a fine of SEK 4m (£329,427). The Court of Appeal reduced the sanction fee to SEK 1m in each case.
Subsequently, the Spelinspektionen has announced its intention to appeal the judgments to the Supreme Administrative Court, saying that it “does not share the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the provisions on penalty fees”.
The regulator says that the alternative fees decided by the Court of Appeal are “too low” in relation to the seriousness of the infringement and the companies’ turnover.
It adds that in order for penalty fees to be dissuasive and proportionate, it is necessary to take the companies’ turnover into account when determining the size.
Furthermore, the Spelinspektionen also says that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal “contravenes both the principle of proportionality and equal treatment”.
The SGA said in a media statement confirming its intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court: “The question of how the sanction fee is to be determined is of decisive importance for all decisions according to ch. Section 12 of the Gaming Act, which is combined with a penalty fee.
“For the management of the application of law, it is therefore of great importance that the judgments of the Court of Appeal are taken up for review by the Supreme Administrative Court.”