Lüneburg Administrative Court orders closure of arcades.
After a court hearing, the 5th Chamber of the Lüneburg Administrative Court rejected a gaming arcade operator's lawsuit against the City of Celle. The operator was seeking permission to operate an arcade with multiple gaming machines under one roof.
For over five years, the plaintiff, a nationwide game center company, had been operating four connected arcades. They had received a license in July 2010. However, the new Interstate Gambling Treaty, which came into effect on July 1, 2012, no longer allows such combined arcades. The law also sets regulations for the minimum distance between arcades. There's a transitional period until June 30, 2017, during which operators must follow these rules if they didn't apply for and obtain an exemption.
The Initial Situation of the Legal Dispute
On November 2, 2015, the operator requested an exemption to avoid excessive financial harm. The reasoning behind this was that a closure in 2017 would lead to significant losses, their agreement with the city was long-term, and their investments would not be paid off by then. Since the law has provisions for such exemptions, the authorities could grant a stay of implementation.
On February 19, 2016, Celle issued approval for a single arcade at the site, but denied the exemption request on February 22. The city justified its decision, stating that the applicant could still operate a separate arcade at the location and use other locations in town if the new laws were followed. They also emphasized the need to consider the financial situation of the entire business.
On March 17, 2016, the operator lodged a formal complaint. They added to the hardship argument, pointing out that the rush of exemption refusals nationwide would be economically irrational.
The Court's Decision
The 5th Chamber of the court concluded that the exemption denial was lawful. They explained that this regulation should be applied narrowly and only for unusual cases not envisioned by the legislature. Closing down arcades is not an unusual situation, but something the legislature anticipated and planned for. Reducing the number of gaming establishments is meant to prevent gambling addiction. The court didn't see any undue hardship in the long-term lease agreement, as there was a five-year transition period and the plaintiff didn't make any discernible efforts to restructure their business. Complete amortization of their investments was irrelevant to the hardship rule.
The appeal was granted due to the significance of the case. The Lüneburg Administrative Court currently has over 30 pending lawsuits, each of which concerns an exemption from the ban on interconnectedness or distance requirements.
Background: The New Interstate Gambling Treaty
The State Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV) became effective on July 1, 2012. Besides requiring a permit for gaming arcade construction and operation, it set a minimum distance between gaming arcades and prohibited permits for interconnected gaming arcades. In April, the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) ruled that the ban on interconnected gaming arcades in the Interstate Treaty on Gambling was in line with the German Constitution, reinforcing the complex nature of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling and the challenges of implementing its provisions. The future remains uncertain in terms of how many exemptions the law may grant, but the industry will undoubtedly put up a fight.
Read also:
- Columbia University Faces Possible Expulsion Following Demonstrations
- Football turmoil in Munich: Last-minute penalty stuns Bayern
- Steinmeier Faces Backlash Over "Expert Caliber" Remark
- US State Department Lacks Own Standards in Regard to Israel
Source: www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com
