Betting Agencies: conditional permission violates higher-ranking law
- Law of Administrative Court Arnsberg to the Judgement of 09 February 2011 -
The Administrative Court Arnsberg in the firm KARTAL Legal proceedings conducted by order of 09 February 2011 (Ref. 1 K 2979/07) held that the prohibition of the organization, operation and provision of sports betting by private operators not to the failure to meet the licensing requirements and thus be based on § 9 para 1 sentence 3 No. 3 GST can .
means literally it: "For the standardized permit requirement violates higher-ranking law and notably the right of establishment and freedom to provide services under Article 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - TFEU - (formerly Articles 43 and 49 EC) is not compatible" ( p.5).
The court reached this decision because of the required synopsis of the State Treaty on gaming, and in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia state treaty on gambling standardized rules of the North Rhine-Westphalia state sports betting monopoly of state broadcasters. These rules include in particular the possibility of sports betting exchange by private providers of which have received a permit for such activity in another Member State of the European Union.
In support of the illegality of the state sports betting monopoly leads the Court to the lack of coherence and refers to the judgments of the ECJ of 8 September 2010, Case C-316/07 and others (including shock). This legal opinion supported the Chamber with detailed representations of the actual "expansion" (p. 12) of the offer in the field of gaming machines (p. 8 et seq.)
then criticized the court, the official intervention despite the lack of opportunity as a private mediator in North Rhine-Westphalia conformity with European law permission to carry out procedures for organizing and arranging of sports betting to (p. 16). Thus, the private agents, no general unreliability and lack Erlaubniswürdigkeit could not because of a completed application, be assumed and relied on a license or under a provision of Internet and Play (p. 17).
The decision of the Administrative Court Arnsberg is finally in line with the currently announced reasons for the decision of the Federal Administrative Court of the judgments of 24 November 2010. The court stated: "The notion that failure to meet the permit requirement as a prohibition order taken individually does not justify, is apparently also the judgments of the Federal Administrative Court (...) - 14:09 8 C and 8 C 15.09 - based. Although the Federal Administrative Court has in the grounds of argument on that is not explicitly position. Otherwise, the Federal Administrative Court, the things would not have to refer back to the appellate court, but would have been complaints, as in the process 8 C 13:09 happened -. Must reject "(p. 16)
considered a result, the Administrative Court Arnsberg comprehensive and the primacy of Union law while the above-mentioned decisions of the ECJ and the Federal Administrative Court. Only this decision upholds the rule of law and prevents a full governmental interference with the freedom to provide services as a result of an arbitrary application-preserving reduction of the rules of the State Treaty on gaming.
Contact:
KARTAL Legal
lawyer Damir Böhm
Friedenstr. 36 (corner Jöllenbecker St.)
D - 33602 Bielefeld
0 comments:
Post a Comment