THE DEMONIZATION AND HUMILIATION OF THE GAMBLING INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA
This article was written on the day when a national political crisis – the PSD’s exit from government – overlapped with the global economic crisis, marked by the war in Iran. As if the damage caused in nearly every sector by senseless, irrational measures – seemingly aimed at the citizens and businesses of our country – were not enough, the disagreements among those in power only compound the impossible situation we find ourselves in and when it comes to traditional gambling, no exception is made.
by Lawyer Prof. Habil. PhD. Marius PANTEA
Lawyer Prof. Habil. PhD. Marius PANTEA
The Romanian state has turned into a veritable “robber” in the administration of the gambling sector, a claim easily proven if weconsider the recent legislative changes (substantial increases in license and authorization fees, guarantees of millions of euros provided by gambling operators, vice taxes and contributions to the ONJN funds from 1,000 and 5,000 euros/year to 500,000 euros/year, restrictions on conducting business – prohibited in localities with fewer than 15,000 inhabitants, etc.) and the latest amendment transposed by the provisions of GEO 7/2026 for the amendment and supplementation of certain legislative acts, as well as for the adoption of measures to increase the financial capacity of administrative-territorial units, published in the Official Gazette of Romania on the evening of February 25 of this year, that is, immediately after licensed gambling operators had fully paid their contribution to the fund managed by the ONJN for the prevention of addiction (500,000 euros per company). Through the aforementioned regulation, in violation of the Constitution and without adhering to even the most basic rules of legislative drafting, the transfer to local authorities of management powers specific to the state monopoly is established, namely the authority to decide whether traditional gambling may or may not be operated within their jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, local councils have begun a “purge” of physical gambling venues within their administrative-territorial units (ATUs) for the sake of their image, without taking into account the three key aspects relevant to such a decision: the financial, social and legal dimensions.
From a Financial Standpoint:
- In this regard, we recall that 62% of the payroll tax from employees at “specialized venues” go to the local budget.
- Rent tax for gambling venues goes entirely to the local budget.
From a legal standpoint
- Partial bans constitute abuse of power by local authorities;
A Local Council Resolution prohibiting “all games, except for the Lottery or betting” is illegal. We draw attention to the fact that Ordinance 7/2026 allows only the acceptance or complete prohibition of landbased gambling operations.
- Differentiated taxation by game type constitutes discrimination;
The imposition of higher taxes on slot machines compared to sports betting or exemptions for games organized by the National Lottery, constitute discrimination that will be subject to review by administrative courts. A possible criterion is taxation based on the square footage used by the gambling operator.
- Excessive taxation constitutes a de facto ban on the operation of traditional gambling within the local administrative unit’s territory.
- Requests for additional documents – represent an increase in bureaucracy and, consequently, an unjustified burden, imposed solely on gambling operators
Requests for documents from the Land Registry Office, urban planning certificates, impact studies, reports, etc., are bureaucratic obstacles imposed by local administrative units. Government Emergency Ordinance 7/2026 established only minimal, not aggravated, conditions. The additional documents requested constitute an overreach of authority. A fee calculated correctly per square meter but set at an unsustainable level becomes a disguised ban. This opens the way for a complaint to the Constitutional Court regarding the violation of economic freedom (art. 45 of the Constitution).
- Delegating authorization is an impermissible activity, according to the provisions of the legislation governing the state monopoly
Local authorization is issued exclusively by a local council resolution. Not by an act of the mayor, the local police, or a department within the specialized administrative apparatus.
- Payment of the fee in advance – contrary to current legal provisions.
The fee for operating gambling within the administrative-territorial unit must be paid within 30 days of the date the operating authorization is granted, not in advance as a condition for submitting the application. The text of GEO 7/2026 is explicit in this regard.
- Duplication of powers with the ONJN, additional definitions and obligations – exceeding authority
The assumption and reformulation of gambling definitions, the duplication of existing notifications to ONJN, the obligation to maintain public order outside the premises and the reiteration of prohibitions already provided for by law (access by minors, self-excluded individuals, etc.) – all these obligations exceed the authority delegated by GEO 7/2026. The local authority has no right to legislate in the field of gambling, which has long been regulated by GEO 77/2009.
HUMILIATION OF THE GAMBLING INDUSTRY
From a Social Standpoint
Closing traditional gambling venues will not solve the social problem of gambling addiction because there will be a massive shift to online gambling, most of which is unlicensed and unregulated by any authority. Every gambling participant owns a mobile phone with internet access, which can easily be used to participate in legal or illegal online gambling.
By the decisions they make, ATUs can provide real support to citizens, provided they take into account best practices from civilized EU member states (Spain, France, Italy, Germany, etc.); otherwise, they will have to bear the financial consequences of banning a legal activity without solid arguments, merely for the sake of image.
