In addition to the Dutch reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in the case of Ladbrokes (cf. German Gaming Law updated no. 106), the Raad van State, in its capacity as the highest administrative court of the Netherlands, has referred a case to Luxembourg (decision of 14 May 2008, file-no. 200700622/1). This reference has been filed with the ECJ as Case C-203/08. The referral is based on administrative proceedings between the world’s largest betting exchange Betfair (Sporting Exchange Ltd.) and the Dutch Minister of Justice.

Wettbewerbszentrale (Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition) recently won a court suit in the second instance against the Free State of Bavaria who offers sports betting and games of chance commercially via its State Lottery Administration (Staatliche Lotterieverwaltung), which is a member of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock, the cartel of the monopoly operators. The Court of Appeal of Munich (Oberlandesgericht München) enjoined the Free State of Bavaria from unfair advertisements with regard to three different circumstances.

The Netherland High Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden), the highest Dutch court for civil- and penal cases referred a case regarding the cross-border offer of sports bets for preliminary ruling. The referral is based on proceedings between the private bookmaker Ladbrokes and the Dutch gambling monopoly operator De Lotto. In 2002 Ladbrokes was restricted from accepting sports bets form Dutch citizens. The High Court (Hoge Raad) referred three questions to the ECJ:

The barriers against the cross-border offering of sports betting and gambling erected by the EU (and EEA) Member States have been under strict scrutiny by the European Commission for several years. The Commission judges numerous national provisions to be in breach of Community law and has therefore already initiated infringement proceedings against several Member States, including Germany (two proceedings, one relating to the sports betting monopoly and one relating to the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling) and Austria.

The Administrative Court of Berlin (Verwaltungsgericht Berlin) has once again expressed fundamental constitutional objections against the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspiel-Staatsvertrag) and thus granted relief from judicial execution to a sports betting agent (decision of 5 May 2008, case-no. VG 35 A 108.08). The agent, represented by ARENDTS ANWÄLTE (www.gaminglaw.de), may thus continue to transfer sports bets to a private bookmaker, state licensed in Malta, an EU member state.

After the Austrian regional court of Linz's reference for preliminary ruling regarding the monopoly on casinos other proceedings regarding the licensing procedure for casinos have just recently been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for preliminary ruling, this time from Greece (Case C-145/08 -- "Club Hotel Loutraki"). The reference for preliminary ruling by the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias involves the question whether Community procurement law...

After numerous decisions on sports betting the European Court of Justice may now deal with the admissibility of a casino monopoly. The Austrian County Court of Linz (Landesgericht Linz) recently referred several fundamental questions for preliminary ruling to the ECJ (Case no. C-64/08 - Engelmann). The ECJ's decision could well throw into disarray the current licensing system for casinos in Austria and could be of fundamental importance for other Member States as well. The County Court of Linz referred the following questions for preliminary ruling:

After the Gambelli decision at the end of 2003 and its follow-up decision Placanica of March 2007 another landmark decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the freedom to provide services with regard to sports betting will be pronounced at the beginning of next year. On 29 April 2008, the ECJ's Grand Chamber, composed of 13 judges, heard Case No. C-42/07, referred from Portugal last year (cf. German Gaming Law updated no. 79 for the questions referred for preliminary ruling).

Neben den Vorlagen zweier niederländischer Höchstgerichte (vgl. Sportwettenrecht aktuell Nr. 106 und 107) hat auch der französische Staatsrat (Conseil d´État), in seiner Eigenschaft als oberstes Verwaltungsgericht Frankreichs, die Vereinbarkeit eines Wettmonopols mit Europarecht dem Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegt (Beschluss vom 9. Mai 2008, Entscheidung Nr. 287503). Eingeleitet wurde das Verfahren von dem maltesischen Buchmacher...

Das Verwaltungsgericht (VG) Berlin hatte in den letzten Monaten bereits in mehreren Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes rundlegende verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken gegen den Glücksspielstaatsvertrag geäußert und daher von Untersagungsverfügungen betroffenen Sportwettenvermittlern Vollstreckungsschutz gewährt. Nunmehr hob das VG Berlin auch in der Hauptsache die Untersagungsverfügung des Landesamtes für Bürger- und Ordnungsangelegenheiten Berlin als rechtswidrig auf

Der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) hat kürzlich entschieden, dass die an einen Sportwettenvermittler gezahlte Provision nicht Umsatzsteuerbefreit ist (Beschluss vom 14. Mai 2008, verbundene Rechtssachen C-231/07 und C-232/07). Das Berufungsgericht Brüssel (Cour d’appel Bruxelles) hatte den EuGH um Klärung gebeten, ob eine Befreiung nach Art. 13 Teil B Buchst. d Nr. 3 der Sechsten Umsatzsteuerrichtlinie in Betracht komme, nach der Vermittlungsumsätze bei bestimmten Finanzdienstleistungen steuerbefreit sind.

Die 1. Kammer des Verwaltungsgerichts Freiburg hatte kürzlich in vier Hauptsache-Entscheidungen das staatliche Sportwettenmonopol für europarechtswidrig erklärt und daher Bestattungsverfügungen des Regierungspräsidiums Karlsruhe aufgehoben (Urteile vom 16. April 2008, Az. 1 K 2683/07, 1 K 2063/06, 1 K 2066/06 und 1 K 2052/06). Dieser rechtlichen Beurteilung schloss sich nunmehr die 3. Kammer des VG Freiburg in einem Eilverfahren an.