-
Wochik, today at 04:33 am CEST
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 09:26 pm CEST
-
JonasBrrt, yesterday at 06:33 pm CEST
-
JonasBrrt, today at 12:49 am CEST
-
Max1989, today at 12:19 am CEST
-
Maximale, today at 12:08 am CEST
-
Olli_Eule, yesterday at 11:37 pm CEST
-
Donnie, yesterday at 11:07 pm CEST
-
merkator88, yesterday at 10:53 pm CEST
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 09:37 pm CEST
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 09:34 pm CEST
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 09:29 pm CEST
-
HollandMan, yesterday at 08:36 pm CEST
-
Olli_Eule, yesterday at 08:25 pm CEST
-
Angelina12, yesterday at 07:53 pm CEST
-
BigAl87, yesterday at 07:14 pm CEST
-
Olli_Eule, yesterday at 07:02 pm CEST
-
Deadspin, yesterday at 05:39 pm CEST
-
Kinglol, yesterday at 05:08 pm CEST
-
moody, yesterday at 02:33 pm CEST
-
Langhans_innen, yesterday at 12:29 pm CEST
-
JackieNL, yesterday at 11:32 am CEST
-
WithoutWings, on 3rd Apr. 2025 at 07:57 pm CEST
-
agnesaislami, on 3rd Apr. 2025 at 07:51 pm CEST
-
Pneumatic, on 3rd Apr. 2025 at 03:16 pm CEST
-
BigAl87, on 3rd Apr. 2025 at 04:46 am CEST
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
There are but gamblers from all parts of the population Gibts because no practicing lawyers here in the forum, the current state times briefly and succinctly summarize can Then not even more confusion would arise here, because many users have picked up something somewhere.
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
Have I but above already quoted. There are many file numbers and judgments nachlesbar
Also that of the Federal Administrative Court: https://www.bverwg.de/261017U8C18.16.0
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
This is about the prohibition of casino games on the Internet to organize and to
then similar for sports betting and a concept of intervention for disturbances
and everything is compatible with un ion and constitutional law. Specifically refers to
a plaintiff who organized Games of chance here and this legal dispute is from
2010 and the GlüStV2012.
That does not make the link invalid for now. Maybe you can link the ban
link the ban.
Note that we are talking about the European un ion and the freedom of services
for players. This does not affect the new regulations in DE for now. Or ?
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
The fact is that here, too, the plaintiff invoked the freedom to provide services -> and was rejected.
The BVerwG has now clearly justified this.
the new regulations are again a completely different matter.
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
Thank you for your objective feedback
But that is not an answer to my question.
This is only about a plaintiff as a *service* provider. My point was,
about the 'European freedom to provide services for service recipients' and
the prohibition to play under other licenses. These are 2 pairs of shoes.
And there is nothing that clearly justifies the BVerwG to players
Give us the place with source citation. Would be nice.
The assumption: 'The player has no freedom to provide services',
I could correct in the contribution 467.
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
I can have as much freedom as I want as the "recipient". But if the "giver" acts illegally, I have nothing of it and would also act illegally when "receiving".
What should I be able to refer to?
Only recently there was again a court decision (reference: 23 O 416/20) on this.
Excerpt:
Thus, the freedom of services is not inviolable, as the last sentence states - no matter from which side.
EDIT: I don't know what other sources you want to have; you can probably google the case numbers yourself and read them in the respective courts.
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
is going on. Do you need that? Anyway, it does not concern the link that states that
Players can choose between different licenses. Laws or not.
What does not work, that i-which judgments are transferred to players, which have nothing to do with
to do with a ban on the freedom to provide services for the recipient of the service
have to do with. No player has ever been legally attacked for this. Even the government
fears a migration to the so-called black market.
If bans, it would be in the GlüStV or there would be a judgment. As long as this does not
exists, there is no ban. Nor is there one
I thought you had specifically something like that, which makes my link ineffective.
Your ruling and excerpt concerns providers and §4 the permit requirement. Is completely
unsuitable for German players to prove a ban for a game under un ion license
prove. So let's rather let the link stand as: right, also because
what it says has been going on for a long time.
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Liked this post:
supermode, u****n
Ok
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
Let the babern😂 freedom of services for service recipients, I throw me away 😂 that would mean I could order from a licensed, legal coffeeshop in Holland grass and let me deliver to Germany. And no, I'm still not allowed although the coffee shop is licensed in an EU country. Just switch on your brain Katharina
This post has been translated automatically
Consequences after July 1, 2021
Nobody has liked this post so far
" Freedom to provide services means the equality of EU foreigners with nationals in the temporary, cross-border provision of services."
The recipient has absolutely nothing to do with the whole thing and is not protected by the TFEU at all.
This post has been translated automatically