Catherine2 wrote on 07/18/2021 at 06:11 AM
Yes, I know the legal situation here and that is exactly what should lead you to where you are today.
To that end, the note again:
When is an online casino legal in Germany?
One essential point, for example, is the legality of the gambling offer. It may come as a surprise, but even a casino without a German license can be legal. In this case, it is important that the Provider has a gambling license from an EU country. Then the basic principle of freedom of services within the European un ion comes into play. This allows citizens to use the services of a company as long as it is authorized to do so in an EU country.
As a player, you can therefore legally play in an online casino with a gambling license from Malta. In fact, most Online Casinos are licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority. This renowned regulatory body has been active since 2001 and enjoys an excellent reputation in the online gambling community. Legality and security of casinos without a German license are thus definitely guaranteed.
The players decide
In summary, it is currently mainly up to the players where they prefer to play for real money. As long as the provider has an EU gambling license, users are on the safe side. So it all depends on what is more important to you personally: more security or the freedom to play as you see fit.
It is a good idea to read the page as a whole if you have any questions.
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.
The_Phantom wrote on 07/18/2021 at 12:38 PM
Didn't I already quote above... There are many file numbers and judgments readable
Also that of the Federal Administrative Court: https://www.bverwg.de/261017U8C18.16.0
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 ?
Das_Phantom wrote on 07/19/2021 at 08:11: Now you can pull that apart like chewing gum.
The fact is that the plaintiff has also 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.
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.
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:
Contrary to the defendant's assumption that Section 4 (4) GlüStV, which was in force during the period at issue, was contrary to un ion law, the Regional Court of Coburg ruled, with reference to the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 26.10.2017 (AZ: 8 C 18/16), that the standard was in accordance with un ion law . In this context, the Federal Administrative Court stated that the internet ban on Online Casinos "pursues public welfare objectives legitimate under constitutional and un ion law in a non-discriminatory manner , in particular the protection of minors and the fight against Gambling addiction and accompanying crime". The freedom to provide services standardized in Art. 56 f. TFEU is restricted by such a ban, but this restriction is proportionate , as well as suitable to contribute to the said public welfare purpose and thus justified .
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.
As long as you move here, you have the problems and what is currently happening in DE
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.
Katharina2 wrote on 19.07.2021 at 15:19: As long as you move here, you have the problems and what is currently in DE
is going on. Do you need this? Anyway, it doesn't 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.
Ok
This post has been translated automatically
u****n
Forum posts:1.196Member has been banned
Consequences after July 1, 2021
19th Jul. 2021, at 06:51 pm CEST#483
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
The_Phantom wrote on 07/19/2021 at 16:07
Ok
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
u****n
Forum posts:1.196Member has been banned
Consequences after July 1, 2021
19th Jul. 2021, at 07:13 pm CEST#484
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
and again: there is no "freedom to provide services for service recipients". You cannot simply reinterpret a fundamental freedom that has existed for years and is clearly defined. According to the wording, the freedom to provide services is only about the Provider of services
" 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.
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