Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
8 B 29/12, 8 B 29/12 (8 C 15/12) Generato dall'IA

State sports betting monopoly and EU coherence requirement: dependency on impact assessment of migration to other gambling sectors

Numero d'incarto 8 B 29/12, 8 B 29/12 (8 C 15/12)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) allowed the appeal for revision, granting the complainant's request and determining that the case presents a question of fundamental legal significance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; consequently, the review of the lower court’s decision is authorized. The dispute centers on the compatibility of the state monopoly on sports betting with EU law, specifically examining whether compliance with the Union-level requirement of coherence is contingent upon an impact assessment of player migration toward other, more liberalized gambling sectors. The decisive legal basis is the principle of fundamental importance for admission to revision in administrative proceedings (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO), which superseded the need to evaluate other statutory grounds for admission such as legal divergence or procedural error (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 and 3 VwGO).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; State sports betting monopoly and EU coherence requirement: dependency on impact assessment of migration to other gambling sectors: 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; consequently, the review of the lower court’s decision is authorized. The dispute centers on the compatibility of the state monopoly on sports betting with EU law, specifically examining whether compliance with the Union-level requirement of coherence is contingent upon an impact assessment of player migration toward other, more liberalized gambling sectors. The decisive legal basis is the principle of fundamental importance for admission to revision in administrative proceedings (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO), which superseded the need to evaluate other statutory grounds for admission such as legal divergence or procedural error (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 and 3 VwGO).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto dello sport monopolio legale giuoco e scommessa requisito legale principio del paese di origine motivi di revisione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Cited as the sole legal basis for allowing the appeal to the revision court due to the case's fundamental legal significance.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Revisionszulassung; Vereinbarkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols mit dem unionsrechtlichen Kohärenzerfordernis

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beteiligten hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu. Die Beschwerdebegründung führt u.a. auf die klärungsbedürftige Frage, ob die Vereinbarkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols mit dem unionsrechtlichen Kohärenzerfordernis von einer Folgenabschätzung im Sinne einer Wanderbewegung hin zu liberaler geregelten anderen Glücksspielbereichen abhängt.

Auf die Zulassungsgründe des § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 und 3 VwGO kommt es im Hinblick auf die erfolgreiche Grundsatzrüge nicht an.