|
German Gaming Law updated No. 33 |
Newsletter on Betting and Gambling Law
No. 33 of 8 June 2006
* * * * * * * *
Newsflash:
Administrative Court of Munich: Community law is relevant to sports betting and the question of the scope of its applicability is not resolved in view of the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
Yesterday, the Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgericht München) overruled several rejecting notifications issued by the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior regarding the transfer of sporting bets. The complainants, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE (www.gaminglaw.de), had filed claims for a declarative statement that they were entitled to offer sporting bets to customers in Bavaria (case-no. M 16 K 04.6138) and to transfer sporting bets from Bavaria to a Austrian bookmaker respectively (case-no. M 16 K 05.69).
The complainants had invoked Austrian betting licenses with regards to the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior’s hostile stance. By filing their applications in 2004, the complainants aimed at having the highly controversial legal question resolved, whether sporting bets could be legally offered cross border from the EU Member State Austria to Germany.
The Ministry of the Interior argued that only the Free State of Bavaria (through the Bavarian State Lottery Administration as gaming operator) was allowed to offer sports betting exclusively, whereas state licensed operators from other EU Member States were prohibited from doing so. The Free State of Bavaria argued at the court hearing that Community law was irrelevant. For the rest, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) had taken Community law questions into consideration in its fundamental decision of 28 March 2006 (case-no: 1 BvR 1054/01) and resolved the matter finally.
The Administrative Court disagreed. Community law kept being relevant. The questions arising from the applicability of Community law were not resolved by the fundamental decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. The temporary regulation in the transitional period, as ruled by the Federal Constitutional Court, did not apply to Community law. The Administrative Court therefore revoked the notifications issued by the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior and committed the Free State of Bavaria to decide on the claimants’ requests again, taking into consideration the court’s legal opinion on the issue.
* * * * |
