Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
8 B 53/12, 8 B 53/12 (8 C 38/12) AI generated

Sportwetten monopoly and EU coherence requirement: whether a ban on sports bet mediation is a severe fundamental rights interference warranting declaratory relief

Case Number 8 B 53/12, 8 B 53/12 (8 C 38/12)
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 (8th Senate) dismissed the defendant's complaint and granted leave to appeal for fundamental legal significance, allowing the case to proceed to the Federal Administrative Court for revision. The dispute concerns the prohibition of mediating sports bets under the old German Gambling Act (GlüStV § 10 Abs. 2 and 5) and whether such a ban constitutes a profound interference with fundamental rights that establishes a special interest in declaratory relief under § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO. The court identified the key legal issue for the upcoming revision as whether the compatibility of the state monopoly on sports betting with the EU coherence requirement depends on an assessment of the consequences regarding the "spillover effect" toward other, more liberalized gambling sectors.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG; Sportwetten monopoly and EU coherence requirement: whether a ban on sports bet mediation is a severe fundamental rights interference warranting declaratory relief: The dispute concerns the prohibition of mediating sports bets under the old German Gambling Act (GlüStV § 10 Abs. 2 and 5) and whether such a ban constitutes a profound interference with fundamental rights that establishes a special interest in declaratory relief under § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO. The court identified the key legal issue for the upcoming revision as whether the compatibility of the state monopoly on sports betting with the EU coherence requirement depends on an assessment of the consequences regarding the "spillover effect" toward other, more liberalized gambling sectors.

Keywords

AI generated
legal monopoly sports law declaratory interest fundamental rights established right gaming and wagering

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited as the basis for granting leave to appeal due to fundamental legal significance.
§ 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO
§ 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG
Provisions cited in the order determining the preliminary fixation of the amount in dispute.
AI generated
8 C 13/09
State sports betting monopoly: prohibition of betting mediation in sports club premises and advertising limits under proportionality and EU coherence requirements.
8 B 33/12, 8 B 33/12 (8 C 16/12)
EU coherence requirement and the justification of the state sports betting monopoly in German law
8 B 40/12
Transitional application of a sports betting monopoly violating EU fundamental freedoms and the admissibility of reviewing expired state treaty regulations
8 C 4/10
State sports betting monopoly: unconstitutionality of stimulating advertising and EU coherence requirement across gambling sectors
8 B 47/12
Transitional applicability of EU-incompatible national sports betting monopoly restrictions under fundamental freedoms

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, cited as the basis for granting leave to appeal due to fundamental legal significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG

Provisions cited in the order determining the preliminary fixation of the amount in dispute.

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; Untersagung der Vermittlung von Sportwetten und besonderes Feststellungsinteresse; zur Vereinbarkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols mit dem unionsrechtlichen Kohärenzerfordernis

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Beklagten hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu. Im Revisionsverfahren wird voraussichtlich zu klären sein, ob in der Untersagung der Vermittlung von Sportwetten ein tiefgreifender Grundrechtseingriff liegt, der ein besonderes Feststellungsinteresse im Sinne des § 113 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VwGO begründen kann, sowie gegebenenfalls, ob die Vereinbarkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols nach § 10 Abs. 2 und 5 GlüStV (a.F.) mit dem unionsrechtlichen Kohärenzerfordernis von einer Folgenabschätzung im Sinne einer Wanderbewegung hin zu liberaler geregelten anderen Glücksspielbereichen abhing.

Auf die weiter geltend gemachten Zulassungsgründe kommt es im Hinblick auf die erfolgreiche Grundsatzrüge nicht an.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 GKG.