Hello, now that you see what can happen as far as Online Casinos are concerned, the question arises for me
Are sports betting also in a gray area?
Or do other rules apply there?
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
verified
Former Member
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
3rd Apr. 2019, at 12:19 pm CEST#2
1 Like
Liked this post: Anonym
I would like to think that everything has not been clarified. Basically, the German law on criminal prosecution in this point actually violates EU law.
In spite of everything, sports betting should be viewed in the same way as online casinos. Often the quasi sit yes also on a side in the web. At the moment, therefore, difficult, who gets scared, should move the gambling so in the local casinos or with paysafe or SkrillDeposit and use skrill or Neteller for withdrawal
How is Neteller, Skrill secure?
Can't that be tracked somehow?
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Former Member
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
3rd Apr. 2019, at 02:43 pm CEST#4
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Currently, sports betting is a gray area: de facto illegal, but tolerated and not prosecuted. The political consensus is to legalize sports betting in the long term - but in a highly regulated manner. There seems to be no majority for the legalization of Online Casinos at the moment. Whether that will remain the case, who knows.
Marqes wrote on 04/03/2019 at 14:23: To what extent is Neteller, Skrill secure?
Can't it be tracked somehow?
Sure it can be tracked, with an appropriate amount of effort. To what extent that must be with someone who must have blown a few hundred euros in casinos, must certainly be clarified in each individual case. Since paysafegroup will probably be operating outside the EU in the near future, this may make prosecution even more difficult. I can't think of anything easier than the skrill and MasterCard version for now. The prepaid MC works at the vending machine without any problems and you can get your money at any time. Depositing by bank transfer is also no problem. For such things I have anyway a current account at a forest and meadow bank (Sparda). My checking account runs through ING diba and they don't get anything from the Daddelei - except the mice that I have pulled in Vegas at the machine
Sports betting is clearly not illegal, as the sports betting monopoly in Germany still violates European law. This was explained in detail by the Hessian Administrative Court in its decision 8 B 2744/16 from 2017:
"The cross-border organization of sports betting by the applicant is covered as an economic activity by its freedom to provide services pursuant to Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European un ion (TFEU).
The exercise of this fundamental freedom by the applicant is currently not restricted. The restrictions provided for in codified member state law - the sports betting monopoly that applies in principle as well as the Concession award procedure created for an experimental phase and implemented by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and Sports - are contrary to un ion law. The possibility opened by the State of Hesse as of the end of August 2016 to obtain toleration in the area of sports betting does not satisfy the requirements under un ion law for a provisional licensing procedure valid for a transitional period, which may possibly allow for a continued applicability of the reservation of permission under Section 4 para. 1 of the First State Treaty Amending the State Treaty on Gambling in Germany of December 15, 2011 (GlüStV 2012), which came into force in Hesse on the basis of the Hessisches Glücksspielgesetz (HGlüG) of June 28, 2012 (GVBl. I p. 95).
The cross-border organization of (sports) betting by the applicant is an economic activity covered by its freedom to provide services. Even restrictions on this fundamental freedom that apply indiscriminately to EU foreigners and nationals of the Member State and are thus non-discriminatory - such as a (member) state monopoly on gambling or a reservation of permission - require justification. The recognized (unwritten) justification of compelling reasons of general interest can be fulfilled in the area of Member State gambling law primarily by Member State regulations aimed at preventing addiction and/or crime. A restriction of the freedom to provide services justified under EU law by corresponding member state regulations requires - within the framework of the examination of the principle of proportionality as a barrier - the suitability of the regulations adopted to achieve the respective purpose. This requires that the Member State seeks to achieve the objectives it has set itself with the gambling regulation in a coherent manner, both in terms of the legal framework created (norm level) and in fact (actual implementation of the norm). The coherent pursuit of objectives required of a Member State in terms of concept and implementation, in particular the avoidance of contradictions in the setting and implementation of standards, relates both to the individual gambling sector (internal coherence) and to the gambling sectors as a whole (overall coherence). Differences in the regulation of gambling in a Member State, which result from its federal structure, must be taken into account with regard to the commitment of the European un ion to respect the respective national identities of the Member States (Art. 4 para. 2 sentence 1 of the Treaty on European un ion), as long as they do not counteract the overall coherence in the Member State (cf. on the coherence requirement: Dietlein/Hecker/Ruttig, Glücksspielrecht, 2nd ed. 2013, Einführung Rdnr. 44 ff.; Hilf/Umbach, in: Becker/Hilf/Nolte/Uwer, Glücksspielregulierung, 2017, un ionsrechtliche Aspekte, p. 946 ff. [para. 41 et seq.]; Streinz, ZfWG 2013, 305 et seq.). If a Member State decides in favor of a licensing system, the requirements of transparency, equal treatment and legal certainty must be observed in law and in fact as further barriers.
1. Measured against this, the licensing system based on §§ 1, 9 (2) sentence 2 HGlüG, § 10a in conjunction with §§ 4a et seq. §§ 4a et seq. GlüStV 2012 by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and for Sport constitutes an unjustified restriction of the applicant's freedom to provide services. In its concrete form, this concession award procedure violates the transparency requirement, which is also based on EU law. The incorrect specification in the invitation to tender of the selection criterion relevant for the award of the concessions as well as the weighting of selection criteria which is not in line with the requirements of the State Treaty on Gaming prove that not all conditions and modalities of the concession award procedure are formulated in such a clear, precise and unambiguous manner that all bidders with an average level of expertise can understand the exact meaning of this information and interpret it in the same way when exercising the usual diligence (cf. Senate decision of October 16, 2015 - 8 B 1028/15 - NVwZ 2016, 171; OVG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 23, 2017 - 4 A 3244/06 - ZfWG 2017, 184). For the details of the reasoning, reference is made to the reasons of the Senate decision of 16 October 2015.
2. The state sports betting monopoly pursuant to §§ 1, 6 HGlüG, § 10 (1), (2) and (6) GlüStV 2012, which in any case factually continues to exist, inter alia, as a result of the infringement of the concession award procedure against the (un ion law) transparency requirement and the case law of the Hessian administrative courts on the concession award procedure, likewise does not restrict the freedom to provide services of the applicant in a manner that complies with un ion law. For, at least with regard to the actual implementation of the law, there is (still) no coherent pursuit of the legislative goal of addiction prevention.
The objective of combating Gambling addiction and directing the gambling urge of consumers into controlled legal areas is only pursued in a coherent manner if the monopoly holder consistently refrains from promoting the willingness to bet (see BVerwG, judgment of June 1, 2011 - BVerwG 8 C 2.10 - NVwZ 2011, 1328 = juris, marginal no. 46). The advertising of the monopoly operators must therefore be moderate and constitute a market influence that steers consumers towards the licensed gaming activities. This is because the sole purpose is to lure customers from illegality to legality, not, on the other hand, to entice them to gamble. This means that advertising may not incite, encourage or encourage betting, but must be limited to providing information and clarification about the nature and manner of legal betting opportunities. This is contradicted by advertising measures that are to be understood as motivation to bet by an average recipient of the message who has not yet decided to bet. In particular, the attractiveness of the betting game may not be increased by attractive advertising messages that hold out the prospect of significant wins (cf. ECJ, judgments of September 8, 2010 "Stoß u. a." - C-316/07 et al. - ECR 2010, I-8069, para. 103; of 30 June 2011 "Zeturf Ltd./Premierministre" - C-212/08 - ECR 2011, I-5633, para. 71; of 15 September 2011 "Dickinger" - C-347/09 - ECR 2011, I-8185, para. 68f). This also excludes stimulating links of informative notices with the announcement of special distributions or other higher or additional chances of winning. A presentation that can trigger pressure to make a decision, for example by means of limited offers, is also not permitted (cf. BVerwG, judgment of June 1, 2011 - BVerwG 8 C 2.10 - NVwZ 2011, 1328 = juris, marginal no. 34ff.).
Furthermore, any form of image or sympathy advertising that arouses sympathy for the betting itself over and above the reference to the legality of the monopoly offers is inadmissible. The monopoly holder may not present participation in betting as socially adequate entertainment, nor may it lend a positive image to gambling by pointing - beyond factual information in the sense of accountability without reference to specific gambling opportunities - to a charitable use of the revenues generated, thus upgrading betting to "donation through gambling". The generation of revenue to finance social activities with the help of a levy on the revenue from authorized gaming may only be a pleasing or useful side effect, but not the actual reason for the "restrictive" policy pursued. This is because references to the charitable use of proceeds from betting events upgrade betting to sponsorship of charitable activities and thus constitute the decision to participate as an act to be judged positively. Simultaneous references to the betting Risk and the dangers of betting cannot form a sufficient counterweight to this, because they do not affect the moral upgrading of betting to behavior to be judged positively (BVerwG, judgment of November 24, 2010 - BVerwG 8 C 15.09 - NWVBl 2011, 307 = juris Rdnr. 52f., 77).
The advertising practice of the federal states as monopoly holders (still) does not meet these requirements.
Under EU law, it is not only decisive whether advertising is (systematically) unlawful in Hesse. Rather, the Federal Republic as a Member State and thus the advertising of the monopoly holders in the other federal states must also be taken into account. This is because the internal allocation of responsibilities within a Member State does not release it from its obligation to guarantee the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment and to take account of the requirement of consistency in the event of restrictions (see ECJ, Judgment of September 8, 2010 - Case C-46/08 (Carmen Media) -, juris, paras. 69, 71; for the nationwide view in advertising, also OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of June 8, 2011 - 1 B 31.08 - juris, para. 11).
This is also necessary due to the so-called umbrella brand strategy pursued by the state lottery companies, which places the marketing of the umbrella brand Lotto at the center of their advertising activities and, by using this umbrella brand, effectively advertises all products sold by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock. This is a coordinated and planned approach to the distribution of the offers.
The advertising activities of the state gambling providers operating together under the "Lotto" umbrella brand are not limited to information and education in order to effectively steer gambling propensity in a lawful direction, but are also aimed at encouraging previously undecided persons to play. In this respect, there are also not only isolated enforcement deficiencies, but there is a structural implementation deficit."
But advertising for sports betting comes in rows on TV. In addition, some clubs have casino + sports betting Provider as a sponsor. Normally, you would have to sue the state that you're always hooked, by the advertising, to play. Deposit can without end since no one says anything but if de times ne large sum auszahlst one is immediately considered a criminal 🤣 do not understand the logic
with all the things that are really forbidden, the prison capacity would not be sufficient by far if every single person would be prosecuted, just downloading movies and music or streaming them would blow up every prison
I'm watching the handball cup final and there's an ad for Leo Vegas Casino on the boards. So this should have made this question superfluous, whether sports betting is prohibited. Clear no, if people are still asked to do so.
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
Are sports betting also in a gray area?
Or do other rules apply there?
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Liked this post: Anonym
In spite of everything, sports betting should be viewed in the same way as online casinos. Often the quasi sit yes also on a side in the web. At the moment, therefore, difficult, who gets scared, should move the gambling so in the local casinos or with paysafe or Skrill Deposit and use skrill or Neteller for withdrawal
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
Can't that be tracked somehow?
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
Here are two relatively recent articles on this:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/sportwetten-sollen-legal-werden-bundeslaender-einigen-sich-a-1259055.html
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/article189673315/Gluecksspiel-Diese-Regeln-sollen-kuenftig-fuer-Sportwetten-gelten.html
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
Sure it can be tracked, with an appropriate amount of effort. To what extent that must be with someone who must have blown a few hundred euros in casinos, must certainly be clarified in each individual case. Since paysafegroup will probably be operating outside the EU in the near future, this may make prosecution even more difficult. I can't think of anything easier than the skrill and MasterCard version for now. The prepaid MC works at the vending machine without any problems and you can get your money at any time. Depositing by bank transfer is also no problem. For such things I have anyway a current account at a forest and meadow bank (Sparda). My checking account runs through ING diba and they don't get anything from the Daddelei - except the mice that I have pulled in Vegas at the machine
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Liked this post: Anonym
http://www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de/lexsoft/default/hessenrecht_lareda.html#docid:7880443
"The cross-border organization of sports betting by the applicant is covered as an economic activity by its freedom to provide services pursuant to Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European un ion (TFEU).
The exercise of this fundamental freedom by the applicant is currently not restricted. The restrictions provided for in codified member state law - the sports betting monopoly that applies in principle as well as the Concession award procedure created for an experimental phase and implemented by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and Sports - are contrary to un ion law. The possibility opened by the State of Hesse as of the end of August 2016 to obtain toleration in the area of sports betting does not satisfy the requirements under un ion law for a provisional licensing procedure valid for a transitional period, which may possibly allow for a continued applicability of the reservation of permission under Section 4 para. 1 of the First State Treaty Amending the State Treaty on Gambling in Germany of December 15, 2011 (GlüStV 2012), which came into force in Hesse on the basis of the Hessisches Glücksspielgesetz (HGlüG) of June 28, 2012 (GVBl. I p. 95).
The cross-border organization of (sports) betting by the applicant is an economic activity covered by its freedom to provide services. Even restrictions on this fundamental freedom that apply indiscriminately to EU foreigners and nationals of the Member State and are thus non-discriminatory - such as a (member) state monopoly on gambling or a reservation of permission - require justification. The recognized (unwritten) justification of compelling reasons of general interest can be fulfilled in the area of Member State gambling law primarily by Member State regulations aimed at preventing addiction and/or crime. A restriction of the freedom to provide services justified under EU law by corresponding member state regulations requires - within the framework of the examination of the principle of proportionality as a barrier - the suitability of the regulations adopted to achieve the respective purpose. This requires that the Member State seeks to achieve the objectives it has set itself with the gambling regulation in a coherent manner, both in terms of the legal framework created (norm level) and in fact (actual implementation of the norm). The coherent pursuit of objectives required of a Member State in terms of concept and implementation, in particular the avoidance of contradictions in the setting and implementation of standards, relates both to the individual gambling sector (internal coherence) and to the gambling sectors as a whole (overall coherence). Differences in the regulation of gambling in a Member State, which result from its federal structure, must be taken into account with regard to the commitment of the European un ion to respect the respective national identities of the Member States (Art. 4 para. 2 sentence 1 of the Treaty on European un ion), as long as they do not counteract the overall coherence in the Member State (cf. on the coherence requirement: Dietlein/Hecker/Ruttig, Glücksspielrecht, 2nd ed. 2013, Einführung Rdnr. 44 ff.; Hilf/Umbach, in: Becker/Hilf/Nolte/Uwer, Glücksspielregulierung, 2017, un ionsrechtliche Aspekte, p. 946 ff. [para. 41 et seq.]; Streinz, ZfWG 2013, 305 et seq.). If a Member State decides in favor of a licensing system, the requirements of transparency, equal treatment and legal certainty must be observed in law and in fact as further barriers.
1. Measured against this, the licensing system based on §§ 1, 9 (2) sentence 2 HGlüG, § 10a in conjunction with §§ 4a et seq. §§ 4a et seq. GlüStV 2012 by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and for Sport constitutes an unjustified restriction of the applicant's freedom to provide services. In its concrete form, this concession award procedure violates the transparency requirement, which is also based on EU law. The incorrect specification in the invitation to tender of the selection criterion relevant for the award of the concessions as well as the weighting of selection criteria which is not in line with the requirements of the State Treaty on Gaming prove that not all conditions and modalities of the concession award procedure are formulated in such a clear, precise and unambiguous manner that all bidders with an average level of expertise can understand the exact meaning of this information and interpret it in the same way when exercising the usual diligence (cf. Senate decision of October 16, 2015 - 8 B 1028/15 - NVwZ 2016, 171; OVG North Rhine-Westphalia, judgment of January 23, 2017 - 4 A 3244/06 - ZfWG 2017, 184). For the details of the reasoning, reference is made to the reasons of the Senate decision of 16 October 2015.
2. The state sports betting monopoly pursuant to §§ 1, 6 HGlüG, § 10 (1), (2) and (6) GlüStV 2012, which in any case factually continues to exist, inter alia, as a result of the infringement of the concession award procedure against the (un ion law) transparency requirement and the case law of the Hessian administrative courts on the concession award procedure, likewise does not restrict the freedom to provide services of the applicant in a manner that complies with un ion law. For, at least with regard to the actual implementation of the law, there is (still) no coherent pursuit of the legislative goal of addiction prevention.
The objective of combating Gambling addiction and directing the gambling urge of consumers into controlled legal areas is only pursued in a coherent manner if the monopoly holder consistently refrains from promoting the willingness to bet (see BVerwG, judgment of June 1, 2011 - BVerwG 8 C 2.10 - NVwZ 2011, 1328 = juris, marginal no. 46). The advertising of the monopoly operators must therefore be moderate and constitute a market influence that steers consumers towards the licensed gaming activities. This is because the sole purpose is to lure customers from illegality to legality, not, on the other hand, to entice them to gamble. This means that advertising may not incite, encourage or encourage betting, but must be limited to providing information and clarification about the nature and manner of legal betting opportunities. This is contradicted by advertising measures that are to be understood as motivation to bet by an average recipient of the message who has not yet decided to bet. In particular, the attractiveness of the betting game may not be increased by attractive advertising messages that hold out the prospect of significant wins (cf. ECJ, judgments of September 8, 2010 "Stoß u. a." - C-316/07 et al. - ECR 2010, I-8069, para. 103; of 30 June 2011 "Zeturf Ltd./Premierministre" - C-212/08 - ECR 2011, I-5633, para. 71; of 15 September 2011 "Dickinger" - C-347/09 - ECR 2011, I-8185, para. 68f). This also excludes stimulating links of informative notices with the announcement of special distributions or other higher or additional chances of winning. A presentation that can trigger pressure to make a decision, for example by means of limited offers, is also not permitted (cf. BVerwG, judgment of June 1, 2011 - BVerwG 8 C 2.10 - NVwZ 2011, 1328 = juris, marginal no. 34ff.).
Furthermore, any form of image or sympathy advertising that arouses sympathy for the betting itself over and above the reference to the legality of the monopoly offers is inadmissible. The monopoly holder may not present participation in betting as socially adequate entertainment, nor may it lend a positive image to gambling by pointing - beyond factual information in the sense of accountability without reference to specific gambling opportunities - to a charitable use of the revenues generated, thus upgrading betting to "donation through gambling". The generation of revenue to finance social activities with the help of a levy on the revenue from authorized gaming may only be a pleasing or useful side effect, but not the actual reason for the "restrictive" policy pursued. This is because references to the charitable use of proceeds from betting events upgrade betting to sponsorship of charitable activities and thus constitute the decision to participate as an act to be judged positively. Simultaneous references to the betting Risk and the dangers of betting cannot form a sufficient counterweight to this, because they do not affect the moral upgrading of betting to behavior to be judged positively (BVerwG, judgment of November 24, 2010 - BVerwG 8 C 15.09 - NWVBl 2011, 307 = juris Rdnr. 52f., 77).
The advertising practice of the federal states as monopoly holders (still) does not meet these requirements.
Under EU law, it is not only decisive whether advertising is (systematically) unlawful in Hesse. Rather, the Federal Republic as a Member State and thus the advertising of the monopoly holders in the other federal states must also be taken into account. This is because the internal allocation of responsibilities within a Member State does not release it from its obligation to guarantee the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment and to take account of the requirement of consistency in the event of restrictions (see ECJ, Judgment of September 8, 2010 - Case C-46/08 (Carmen Media) -, juris, paras. 69, 71; for the nationwide view in advertising, also OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, Decision of June 8, 2011 - 1 B 31.08 - juris, para. 11).
This is also necessary due to the so-called umbrella brand strategy pursued by the state lottery companies, which places the marketing of the umbrella brand Lotto at the center of their advertising activities and, by using this umbrella brand, effectively advertises all products sold by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock. This is a coordinated and planned approach to the distribution of the offers.
The advertising activities of the state gambling providers operating together under the "Lotto" umbrella brand are not limited to information and education in order to effectively steer gambling propensity in a lawful direction, but are also aimed at encouraging previously undecided persons to play. In this respect, there are also not only isolated enforcement deficiencies, but there is a structural implementation deficit."
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Liked this post: Anonym
And no it is NOT the same as online casino as some ignorant people want to spread here.
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Liked this post:
sonne10
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
Are sports betting now also prohibited?
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically