progetti

Leave to appeal on sports betting monopoly and EU coherence

BVerwG 8 B 29/12, 8 B 29/12 (8 C 15/12)Bverwg / Division 824 mag 2012Granted

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 importance because it raises the question whether the compatibility of the state sports betting monopoly with the EU coherence requirement depends on an impact assessment regarding migration toward more liberally regulated gambling sectors. Since this ground succeeded, the court did not need to address the alternative grounds under § 132(2) Nos. 2 and 3 VwGO.

Massima Omnilex

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; fundamental importance in non-admission complaint proceedings; a complaint is successful if it identifies a clarifiable question of law relevant to the case. The compatibility of a state sports betting monopoly with the Union-law coherence requirement may raise such a question where it depends on whether a migration effect toward more liberal gambling sectors must be assessed (consid. 1). If the ground of fundamental importance is established, examination of the alternative grounds under § 132 Abs. 2 Nos. 2 and 3 VwGO is unnecessary (consid. 2).

Testo completo

BVerwG — 8 B 29/12, 8 B 29/12 (8 C 15/12), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-05-24

Aktenzeichen: 8 B 29/12, 8 B 29/12 (8 C 15/12)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 12. Januar 2012, Az: 10 BV 10.2505

Spruchkörper: 8. Senat

Titelzeile

Revisionszulassung; Vereinbarkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols mit dem unionsrechtlichen Kohärenzerfordernis

Gründe

1 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.

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

Parole chiave

sports betting monopolyEU coherencefundamental importancenon-admission complaintrevision

Estratto da Omnilex

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the complaint establishes a question of fundamental importance regarding the compatibility of the state sports betting monopoly with the EU coherence requirement.

Decisione estratta

Yes. The case raises a clarifiable legal question as to whether compatibility with the coherence requirement depends on an impact assessment of migration toward more liberal gambling sectors.

Motivazione estratta

The complaint identified a question needing clarification under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO; because this ground succeeded, the court did not need to examine the other asserted grounds.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the other admissibility grounds under § 132(2) Nos. 2 and 3 VwGO had to be examined.

Decisione estratta

No. Once fundamental importance was accepted, the other grounds were irrelevant to the decision.

Motivazione estratta

The successful fundamental-rights/fundamental-importance complaint made further examination unnecessary.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

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