progetti

Revision allowed for gambling ban specificity

BVerwG 8 B 33/15, 8 B 33/15 (8 C 18/16)Bverwg / Division 827 lug 2016Granted

Apri la fonte

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against non-admission of revision. It held that the case has fundamental significance because the revision proceedings are likely to clarify the specificity requirements of a gambling-law prohibition order that refers to the statutory definition of gambling in section 3 GlüStV. The court also saw a further important question concerning whether the authority must proceed according to a plan or overall concept when taking staggered action against individual providers or provider groups. The order contains a preliminary determination of the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Massima Omnilex

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; the complaint against non-admission of revision is successful where the case raises a question of fundamental significance. Such significance exists if the revision proceedings are likely to clarify an unsettled point of law of general importance. For gambling-law prohibition orders, this may concern the requirements of specificity under § 37 Abs. 1 VwVfG where the order reproduces the statutory definition of gambling by reference to § 3 GlüStV. It may also concern whether and to what extent an authority must apply a staggered enforcement concept against individual providers or provider groups; in particular, whether a plan or overall concept is required and how it must be structured (consid. 2-3).

Testo completo

BVerwG — 8 B 33/15, 8 B 33/15 (8 C 18/16), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-07-27

Aktenzeichen: 8 B 33/15, 8 B 33/15 (8 C 18/16)

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:270716B8B33.15.0

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, 8. September 2015, Az: 6 S 1426/14, Urteilvorgehend VG Karlsruhe, 3. November 2011, Az: 3 K 386/10

Spruchkörper: 8. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; Bestimmtheit einer glücksspielrechtlichen Untersagungsverfügung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu.

2 Das Revisionsverfahren bietet voraussichtlich Gelegenheit, die Voraussetzungen der Bestimmtheit (§ 37 Abs. 1 VwVfG) einer glücksspielrechtlichen Untersagungsverfügung, die gesetzeswiederholend auf die Begriffsdefinition des Glücksspiels des § 3 GlüStV verweist, näher zu präzisieren.

3 Darüber hinaus führt die Beschwerdebegründung voraussichtlich auf die Rechtsfrage, welche Anforderungen an ein abgestuftes Vorgehen der Behörde gegen einzelne Anbieter oder Anbietergruppen beim Erlass glücksspielrechtlicher Untersagungsverfügungen zu stellen sind insbesondere, ob ein Plan oder Gesamtkonzept für das behördliche Vorgehen vorliegen und gegebenenfalls, wie dieses beschaffen sein muss.

4 Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.

Parole chiave

specificitygambling lawleave to appealfundamental significanceadministrative prohibitionenforcement strategy

Estratto da Omnilex

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether revision should be allowed for the fundamental significance of the specificity requirements of a gambling-law prohibition order that incorporates the statutory definition of gambling.

Decisione estratta

Yes. The case raises a question of fundamental significance concerning how specific such a prohibition order must be under section 37(1) VwVfG when it repeats the legal definition of gambling by reference.

Motivazione estratta

The revision proceedings will likely clarify the requirements of specificity for a gambling-law prohibition order and thus a point of law of general importance exists under section 132(2) no. 1 VwGO.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether further clarification is needed on the legality of a staggered administrative approach against individual providers or provider groups in gambling-law prohibition orders.

Decisione estratta

Yes. The complaint also points to a further important legal question on whether the authority must proceed according to a plan or overall concept when issuing such orders.

Motivazione estratta

The court considered it likely that the proceedings would require clarification of the standards for a graduated enforcement strategy against individual providers or groups of providers.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.