1 year ago
what does the number mean in Seq or sitting status mal proof plaintiff mal proof defendant, filing note of observations???
Automatic translation:
Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 75)
1 year ago
Yes, those are the various applications
When you open the document, there is a number at the top and sometimes even another number. You can also search under these numbers using ref no. and something will come up
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
great cinema of our "rule of law"...texts free of meaning as a PDF download for every "negotiation" in this grandiose legal system....this idiotic two-liner should be the entire "content" of the respective appointment.....our "rule of law" is even worse in the ass than one had already assumed
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Interesting… there are only 5 cases listed against Red Rhino i.e. Platincasino.
How can that be ?
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Yes, of course, Pokerstars doesn't pay
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
oh no, not even in Germany....they haven't noticed that the specialist in the field abelinglaekamp claims that everyone in Germany pays well ?? ...and then they actually got a license anyway...what a joke corrupt ***** children actually issue these licenses in Germany?
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
It is definitely not a good sign that the BGH has suspended the proceedings. This is what most OLG should/will be guided by. The legal situation has so far been in favor of the players, but why is the Federal Court of Justice waiting for the ECJ's decision when the legal situation is clear. Apparently there are concerns, otherwise the BGH would have rejected everything. I'm very pessimistic at the moment.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Just because it's been decided that way doesn't mean that everyone else will miss out too.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Hi Leo! On the contrary, you should be optimistic, because BgH has already ruled in favor of the players in 2021 and this opinion has not changed. Here is the excerpt.
In its decision of July 22, 2021, the Supreme Court confirmed that the German online gambling ban according to Section 4 Paragraph 4 GlüStV is compatible with European law (all information about the new GlüStV can be found here). In addition, it is not necessary to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, as the Court of Justice had already declared in 2010 that the examination of restrictive measures in relation to gambling was the responsibility of the national courts. The Federal Court of Justice puts it as follows:
"The defendant's complaint against the non-admission of the appeal in the judgment of the Chamber Court - 5th Civil Senate - of October 6, 2020 is rejected because the case has neither fundamental importance nor the further development of the law or the securing of uniform jurisprudence is a decision of the appeal court requires ( § 543 para. 2 sentence 1 ZPO ). There is no reason to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267(3) TFEU. In the event of a dispute, no question of relevance to the decision arises regarding the interpretation of Union law that has not already been clarified by the case law of the Court of Justice or that cannot be answered beyond doubt (cf. ECJ, judgment of October 6, 1982 - 283/81, Coll. 1982, 3415 para. 21 = NJW 1983, 1257 - Cilfit et al; judgment of October 1, 2015 - C-452/14, GRUR Int. 2015, 1152 Rn. 43 - Doc Generici, mwN). The Court of Justice has decided that the examination of the consistency of restrictive measures in the gaming sector under EU law is a matter for the national courts in individual cases (cf. ECJ, judgment of September 8, 2010 - C-46/08, Coll. 2010, I-8149 = NVwZ 2010, 1422 No. 65 - Carmen Media Group). He has already clarified the principles of Union law that are relevant for this examination (cf. ECJ, judgment of September 15, 2011 - C-347/09, Coll. 2011, I-8185 = EuZW 2011, 841 Rn. 44, 56 - Dickinger and ?mer, mwN). In accordance with Section 544 Paragraph 6 Sentence 2 Half Sentence 2 ZPO , further justification is not required." (BGH, decision of July 22, 2021 – I ZR 199/20)
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Just as LG follows the OLG, the OLG has to follow the BGH. The cases are similar and can be transferred 1 to 1 and if the Federal Court of Justice considers it necessary to wait for the European Court of Justice, then that is not a good sign for us players. Anyone who puts it in a nice way or is still grasping at straws is blind, sry.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
And that's exactly why the OLGs are not suspending the proceedings, BECAUSE THE BGH has already ruled in 2021 that everything is compliant with the Union. And there will be no caller that Eugh needs, etc. There will be no suspensions, THE Olgs, or the LG.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Why everyone is now just waiting for the ECJ can be a good thing, because then Malta can no longer say that it is illegal.
In Austria, proceedings were also suspended and two months later they were heard again.
It's completely normal, they've applied for this umpteen times now and a court follows them sometimes and then it continues again anyway because the ECJ already has rulings.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Since the questions submitted by the Maltese court are also decisive for the similar cases to be decided before the German courts, there is in principle the possibility of suspending these proceedings in accordance with Section 148 Paragraph 1 ZPO (analogously) until the decision is made by the ECJ. However, the decision on the suspension is at the discretion of the deciding court. So far, however, the German lower courts have been very cautious about this opportunity, which is fundamentally available to them. Only one decision from the Magdeburg Regional Court is publicly known, which has at least considered such a suspension of the proceedings (Magdeburg Regional Court (10th Civil Chamber), decision of October 2nd, 2023 - 10 O 597/23).
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
The OLG decisions can all be overturned one by one. The defendants will now always go to the end.
No judge at the OLG would like to receive a slap in the face from the BGH and will then also suspend the lawsuits in advance. I think there will be dozens of verdicts by the middle of the year.
Edited
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
As I said, the BGH has already positioned itself in favor of THE players in 2021. Nothing will change because the ECJ remains true to its line. This will now be confirmed again by the ECJ. Austria and Germany regulate their matters in accordance with the Union.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Good morning!!
and even if the OLGs do not suspend the proceedings, the casino providers will go to the end anyway. This means filing an appeal or a non-admission complaint (if the Higher Regional Court does not allow this). In the end you end up going to the BGH anyway, and it will certainly stay until the EUgH makes a decision ??
Edited
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
You're right, but keep in mind that this preliminary ruling procedure was initiated by a Civil Court in Malta corm Eugh, whether the State Treaty on Gambling was compliant with the European Union until 21 December. The EU Court of Justice had already decided in 2009 that this contract is Union-compliant and does not violate Section 56 of freedom to provide services. Therefore, all German courts do not suspend the proceedings. The BGH also made it clear in its decision 21 that there is no reason to appeal to the ECJ because it has already ruled in favor of Austria and Germany in 2009, etc. This procedure from the Civil Court in Malta is a pure waste of time
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
If I remember correctly, an adjudicated procedure can no longer be challenged by a non-admission complaint, even if the ECJ decides differently, which will not happen, all legal experts and, above all, all the lawyers who represent players agree on that. Anything else would be a negative sensation if the ECJ ruled against itself.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
If I remember correctly, an adjudicated procedure can no longer be challenged by a non-admission complaint, even if the ECJ decides differently, which will not happen, all legal experts and, above all, all the lawyers who represent players agree on that. Anything else would be a negative sensation if the ECJ ruled against itself.
Automatic translation:
1 year ago
Of course, the verdict itself remains - but it cannot then be executed and is practically worthless.
Automatic translation:
1
1 year ago
Yes, I wasn't sure about that. But the BGH also suspended proceedings against Schufa at the time because the ECJ's ruling was expected. Until now, the BGH had always ruled in favor of Schufa, but with the GDPR everything changed. The BGH will of course adopt the judgment from the ECJ. Just want to say that just because something was suspended, you can't judge the BGH's legal aim against or for the matter.
Because the BGH itself sees the matter crystal clear and has not appealed to the ECJ since 2009 because there is legal certainty
Automatic translation:
