Kates Playgroun Follando

Federal Court decision to ban private betting services expected




hearing date: March 17, 2011

I ZR 189/08 - Competition Law

LG München I-4 HK O 11552/06 - Judgement 16 December 2007

OLG Munich - 29 U 1669/08 - Judgement of 16 October 2008
I ZR 89/09 - Competition Law
LG Wiesbaden - 11 O 56/06 - Case of 28 March 2007

OLG Frankfurt - 6 U 93/07 - Case of 4 June 2009
I ZR 92/09 - Competition Law
LG Wiesbaden - 13 O 119/06 - Case of 29 November.2007

OLG Frankfurt am Main - 6 U 261/06 - Case of 4 June 2009
I ZR 30/10 - Competition
LG Bremen - 12 O 379/06 - Case of 20 December 2007

OLG Bremen - 2 U 4 / 08 - Judgement of 29th January 2010
I ZR 43/10 - Competition Law
LG Bremen - 12 O 333/07 - Case of 31 July 2008

OLG Bremen - 2 U 96/08 - Case of 12 February 2010
I ZR 93/10 - Competition Law
LG Köln - 31 O 599/08 - Case of 9 July 2009

OLG Köln - 6 U 142/09 - Case of 12 May 2010
The Senate has once again betting on the question of the competitive nature of the private provision of sports betting and other (casino games) are on the Internet. At the core of disputes are now both the prohibition of the organizer and conveying public gambling and the advertising ban on gambling in the public approval on 1 Which came into force in January 2008 State Treaty on gaming. The applicant of the lottery companies to cease to provide information and admission of liability for damages claimed in respect of domestic and foreign betting companies presented and applied for their sports betting services under their own domain names on the Internet, which could be of players at any rate accepted in Germany. Each of them is a violation of provisions of the Penal Code and the State Treaty on gaming accused (§ 4 No. 11 UWG Logo with § § 284, 287 of the Penal Code and § 4 para 4, § 5 para 3 and 4, GST). The lower courts have recognized in different ways: The majority of the district courts and courts of appeal may (OLG Köln, ZfWG 2010, 359; OLG Bremen, ZfWG 2010, 105; I ZR 43/10 - not published) the claims - sometimes only second instance - in full or essentially a result of such non compliance is granted (OLG Frankfurt am Main, ZfWG 2009, 268; OLG Frankfurt am Main, MMR 2009, 577). In contrast, the District Court of Munich I, and the Higher Regional Court of Munich have rejected the claim in full (I ZR 189/08).
The courts of appeals - With the exception of the Higher Regional Court of Munich (Revision has been approved by the Federal Court) - have approved the revision. The Federal Court will have to decide whether the assessment of the courts of appeals is correct. He will have to decide in particular the manner in which is unfair the disputed private betting offers and their competitions on the Internet for infringing the rules of the State Treaty on gaming and whether any restrictions with the higher-ranking union legal services and freedom of establishment (Articles 49 and 56 TFEU ) are consistent. source

The

judgments of the BGH dated 11/18/2010 From well-known fact comes from the judgments of the ECJ of 8.9.2010, several judgments of the Supreme Court, and the judgments of the Federal Administrative Court of 11.24.2010, as appears from the Judgement of 28/03/2006 the Constitutional Court that the state practice has long focused on profit maximization is the legitimate objectives are a false front and the fiscal reasons in foreground.
This is the GST in fact a community law unconstitutional and financial monopoly in the form of a cartel, to which the State was not entitled. (See Article 105, Paragraph 1, Article 106, Section 1, Article 108 paragraph 1 GG; BVerfGE 14, 105, 111ff; Scholz, in: Maunz / Dürig, GG, Art 12 Rn 114, 259th , 413, 417 with further references)
By the findings of the ECJ of 09.08.2010, the GST is contrary to the EC legal requirements for gambling monopolies and was built illegally. (Judgments of the ECJ - Schindler of 24/03/1994, C-275/92; Läärä 21.9.1999, C-124/97; Zenatti, 21.10.1999, C-67/98; Anomar, 11.9.2003, C-6 / 01; Gambelli of 6.11.2003, C-243/01, Lindman, 13.11.2003, C-42/02; Placanica, Palazzese and Sorricchio, 6.3.2007, joined cases C-338/04, C-359/04 . and C-360/04 See also Case: Decisions EFTA of 14.03.2007, Case E-1/06 and 30.05.2007, in Case E-3/06 things Esa / North paths and Ladbrokes, vs. Comm.. Italy on 26/4/1994, C-272/91; Familia Press of 26.06.1997, C-368/95; Hartlauer, C-169/07, ECR 2009, I-0000, Rn.55 of 10 March 2009).
the breach in the antitrust laws, the award of concessions to the state lottery companies were in union illegally - not transparent, non discriminatory and are not open to competition (see C-64/08 - Engelmann), the licenses in Austria must also be recovered, and be reassigned in an accepted method. With union concessions, the illegal monopoly on the part of the lottery companies can hardly be justified.