Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 24.25, 8 B 24.25 (8 C 6.26) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2026:250326B8B24.25.0 AI generated

Duty to hear applicant under VwVfG § 28(1) before imposing adverse conditions on an online gambling license

Case Number 8 B 24.25, 8 B 24.25 (8 C 6.26)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) quashed the higher administrative court’s decision refusing to admit the appeal, thereby granting the applicant’s request for leave to appeal to the Federal level. The dispute concerns an application for a gambling license for online game operations, specifically challenging the lower courts' handling of the administrative authority's imposition of restrictive conditions on the requested permit. The decisive legal issue is whether the authority is obligated to hear the applicant under Section 28(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG) before issuing adverse conditions attached to the license, a question of fundamental significance that remains unresolved in case law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Duty to hear applicant under VwVfG § 28(1) before imposing adverse conditions on an online gambling license: The dispute concerns an application for a gambling license for online game operations, specifically challenging the lower courts' handling of the administrative authority's imposition of restrictive conditions on the requested permit. The decisive legal issue is whether the authority is obligated to hear the applicant under Section 28(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG) before issuing adverse conditions attached to the license, a question of fundamental significance that remains unresolved in case law.

Keywords

AI generated
licensing procedure administrative authority right to remain fundamental rights right to be heard scope of applicable law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The provision cited to establish that the case has fundamental significance, justifying the admission of the revision.
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
AI generated
8 B 6/18, 8 B 6/18 (8 C 14/18)
Isolated challengeability and revocability of a gambling license condition excluding minors despite a defect affecting the entire administrative act
8 B 44/12, 8 B 44/12 (8 C 40/12)
Scope of Gambling License Ban: Whether Lack of Eligibility Justifies Total Prohibition of Sports Betting
8 C 7/17, 8 C 7/17 (8 C 6/15)
Hearing appeal in gaming hall regulation: limits of legal hearing rights versus material correctness and federal-state competence allocation
8 B 31.25
Assessment of permanent administrative acts under changing law and validity of non-oral appellate review in licensing disputes
8 B 47/14
Necessity of oral hearing after change of claim and precondition for admitting continuing declaratory action following revocation of administrative act

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The provision cited to establish that the case has fundamental significance, justifying the admission of the revision.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung zur Anhörungspflicht beim Erlass von Nebenbestimmungen zu einer glücksspielrechtlichen Erlaubnis

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Rheinland-Pfalz über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 29. April 2025 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Beschwerdeverfahren und für das Revisionsverfahren - insoweit vorläufig - auf jeweils 55 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Beschwerde ist begründet. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich die höchstrichterlich noch ungeklärte Rechtsfrage zu klären sein, ob ein Antragsteller, der eine Erlaubnis zur Online-Veranstaltung eines Glücksspiels begehrt, nach § 28 Abs. 1 VwVfG vor dem Erlass ihn belastender Nebenbestimmungen zu der Erlaubnis anzuhören ist.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 52 Abs. 2, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.