After the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held the state monopoly for sports betting in its current form not to be compatible with the German Constitution last week, the legal situation is now going to be reviewed under Community law. The European Commission has sent letters of formal notice to Germany and six other Member States (Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden), requesting information on national legislation restricting the supply of sports betting services. The Commission will use the information to review the compatibility with the free movement of services, guaranteed in Article 40 of the EC Treaty. The Commission will check in particular whether the restrictions on the free movement of services are justified by the protection of the general interest and whether the measures are proportionate and non-discriminatory.

Nachdem das in Deutschland gesetzlich vorgeschriebene staatliche Wettmonopol in seiner bisherigen Form in der letzten Woche vom Bundesverfassungsgericht für verfassungswidrig erklärt worden ist, erfolgt nunmehr eine europarechtliche Überprüfung. Die EU-Kommission hat Deutschland und sechs weitere EU-Mitgliedstaaten (Dänemark, Finnland, Ungarn, Italien, die Niederlande und Schweden) aufgefordert, Angaben zu den innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften über Sportwetten zu machen.

Due to numerous interpretations and misconstructions, in addition to our live report from Karlsruhe, we would again like to present the facts and point out the legal and economic consequences of yesterday's decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). The state monopoly in its current form was clearly held to be unconstitutional. Fiscal reasons, even such as the promotion of sports, can not justify the state monopoly. The current legal situation and exercise is not compatible with the German Constitution.
The state monopoly can only be justified by effectively fighting gambling addiction - which has not been practise by the state operators so far.

Today the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) pronounced its long-awaited decision in the case of sports betting. As we already reported in our newsletter "German Gaming Law updated", the case concerns a Munich based bookmaker, Ms. Katzinger-Göth, having filed constitutional complaint against a decision of the Federal Administrative Court's decision (case-no. 1 BvR 1054/01). In particular she invoked the freedom to choose one's profession as granted by Art. 12 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz).

Ergänzend zu unserem heutigen Live-Bericht aus Karlsruhe sollen angesichts der zahlreichen Deutungen und Fehldeutungen des Urteils zum Einen die Fakten noch einmal dargestellt und zum Anderen die möglichen rechtlichen und wirtschaftlichen Konsequenzen angesprochen werden. Das staatliche Wettmonopol in seiner bisherigen Form ist vom Bundesverfassungsgericht klar für verfassungswidrig erklärt worden. Fiskalische Gründe, auch die Sportförderung, können ein staatliches Monopol nicht rechtfertigen.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat heute die seit Langem erwartete Entscheidung in Sachen Sportwetten verkündet. Wie bereits mehrfach in unserem Newsletter „Sportwettenrecht aktuell“ berichtet, betrifft das Verfahren eine Buchmacherin aus München, Frau Katzinger-Göth, die Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts eingelegt hatte (Az. 1 BvR 1054/01). Sie berief sich darin insbesondere auf die in Art. 12 Grundgesetz garantierte Berufsfreiheit.

As we had already mentioned, the Federal Patent Court has approved the cancellation of the trade mark "LOTTO" for games of chance. The "Deutsche Lotto- und Toto-Block", the cartel of state providers had now filed complaint with the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The Federal Court of Justice - as last instance court - recently approved its cancellation (decision of the 19th of January 2006, case-no. 1 ZB 11/04). "LOTTO" had to be regarded as a descriptive indication of an object. It could not be regarded as a reference to its operational origin. Regarding the designation of a product such as "LOTTO" this could only be the case, if the predominant part of commerce regarded it as a reference to a particular operator. A state monopoly such as it exists in Germany did not change its meaning into a reference of origin.

The "Gambelli" decision unfolds its effect outside the EU as well, as we had already mentioned in no. 17 of our Newsletter "German Gaming Law updated". Parallel to the provisions of the EC-Treaty, the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment are part of the treaty on the European Economic Area (EEA) concluded between the EU-Member States and the EFTA-States. The EFTA Supervisory Authority the equivalent of the EU-Commission, brought action against Norway on March 13th 2006, after the Norwegian government had failed to comply with a comprehensively argued decision by the Supervisory Authority. Meanwhile the writ was served by the EFTA-Court (case-no. E-1/06). Norway was called upon to reply until the 18th of April 2006.

The first quarter of the year 2006 has not passed yet, but in view of tomorrow's pronouncement of the long awaited fundamental judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court, it is clear that this is the year of decisions. The Federal Constitutional Court's decision will certainly result in some kind of liberalisation, though the question of its extent remains open. How is the Federal Constitutional Court going to balance its reasoning, taking into account the freedom to choose one's profession as well as police law (youth protection, the protection from gambling addiction etc.). We will be able to give you a first appraisal after the judgement's pronouncement tomorrow.

On the 29th and the 30th of Mai 2006 the most comprehending event regarding the sports-betting market will take place in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court's decision and its impact will play a vital role. Attorney-at-law Martin Arendts from ARENDTS ANWÄLTE law office specialised in Gaming Law will give a lecture and is at your disposal for any questions.
The event will be arranged by the renown organiser Euroforum in cooperation with the German sports publishing house.

Das erste Quartal des Jahres 2006 ist noch nicht beendet, aber angesichts der morgigen Verkündung des Grundsatzurteils des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist klar, dass es ein Jahr der Entscheidungen wird. Das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts wird eine Liberalisierung bringen. Offen und spannend bleibt allerdings, wie weit diese gehen wird. Wie wird das Bundesverfassungsgericht Berufsfreiheit einerseits und die ordnungsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen (Minderjährigenschutz, Schutz Spielsüchtiger etc.) andererseits abwägen?

Wie bereits berichtet, hatte das Bundespatentgericht die Löschung der Marke „LOTTO“ für Glücksspiele bestätigt. Dagegen hatte der Deutsche Lotto- und Toto-Block, das Kartell der staatlichen Anbieter, Rechtsbeschwerde zum Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) eingelegt. Der BGH hat nunmehr die Löschung letztinstanzlich bestätigt (Beschluss vom 19. Januar 2006, Az. 1 ZB 11/04). „LOTTO“ sei eine beschreibende Sachangabe und dürfe daher nicht als Marke eingetragen werden.