An article by Dr. Andreas Leupold
By order dated 02.07.2011 (Case No.: 13 O 119/06), the Wiesbaden Regional Court rejected an application for order means the Lotteries Trust mbH Hessen (Hesse Lottery ") charge against bwin. bwin was by order of the OLG Frankfurt aM been prohibited from 04.06.2009, as in the Tribunal's ruling played over the Internet in the State of the persons the opportunity to offer or give, sportsbook to enter into fixed-odds without official permission or complete. After delivery of the Appellate Court applied Lotto Hessen, bwin for alleged breach of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court injunction pronounced a "sensitive administrative fine" to be imposed. According to the District Court of Wiesbaden but there
"No doubt that the GST based on the verdict of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court is incompatible with EU law" with the result that Lotto Hessen do not operate with the enforcement of this ruling can. support of his decision the Regional Court of Wiesbaden was based on the ECJ decision in Case C-409/06 09.08.2010 Betting Winner, it was made clear by that, because of the primacy of Union law directly applicable to an incompatible national rules on a state betting monopoly even for a transitional period shall continue to apply. As a result, "European Union law that any conflicting provision of national law without further inapplicable "Is
.
According to the jurisprudence of the ECJ any national court as an institution of a Member State undertakes the final regulatory Union law in its entirety to use and protect the rights that confers on individuals, by refusing any contrary provision of national law . must
National courts therefore refrain from doing anything which would be an obstacle to the full effectiveness of the final regulatory standards form the Union's law. recognition
the decision of the Landgericht Wiesbaden deserves not only for the clear words, that it is the Union's unlawful the enforcement order has been found but also for the conclusions to be drawn right conclusion: "The imposition of penalties in administrative proceedings under the criminal law also contains elements (...) is therefore prohibited by European Union law, if the underlying title is contrary to EU law itself." Any enforcement of the Judgement of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, the District Court of Wiesbaden, "would avoid taking the above-described principles, the provision of effective legal protection of the debtor, or at least be questioned. The approval of the execution of an interim judgments, which focuses on European law would support national regulation, namely to Material differences between the effectiveness of the Union would be justice. This is the view of the chamber regardless of the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure is not in itself contrary to EU law. The application of procedural rules should not lead to the fact that manifests currently the ruling of the OLG Frankfurt existing infringement at the expense of the debtor is. "
The decision of the Landgericht Wiesbaden does away with the false impression that the Union law enforcement procedures of the national courts could not be observed The opposite is the case because, as the ECJ ruling of 29.04.1999 already in Case C-224/97 -. Ciola has clearly prohibits the primacy of Union law of course, the punishment of a union illegal sentence - and regardless of whether this decision is purely provisional enforceability or even enforceable.
Contact: Dr. Andreas Leupold 
0 comments:
Post a Comment