Statement Of The Constitutional Court, That Phrase In § 25 Paragraph 3 Sixth Rate Of The Gambling Act Was Unconstitutional

Original Language Title: Ausspruch des Verfassungsgerichtshofes, dass eine Wortfolge im § 25 Abs. 3 sechster Satz des Glücksspielgesetzes verfassungswidrig war

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.

93. Reaction of the Federal Chancellor on the opposition of the Constitutional Court, that a phrase in Section 25 (3) of the sixth sentence of the gambling law was unconstitutional

According to Art. 140 (5) B-VG and in accordance with Section 64 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act 1953, BGBl. No. 85, is made known:

The Constitutional Court, with the recognition of 27 September 2011, G 34 /10-16, was sent to the Federal Chancellor on 18 September 2011. October 2011, rightly recognized:

" I.

The word order ", whereby the liability of the Board of the Board of the game shall be based on the difference between the net income of the player following losses after losses and taking into account its liquidated assets on the one hand and the net income of the player on the other hand. On the other hand, the subsisting minimum is limited; at the most, the substitute is the concrete subsisting minimum " in 6 Sentence of Section 25 (3) of the Federal Act on the Rules of Gambling (Gambling Act), on the amendment of the Federal Budget Act and on the repeal of the Federal Law on Life Insurance with draw-off, BGBl. No 620/1989 in the BGBl version. I No 105/2005, was unconstitutional.

II.

The phrase referred to in paragraph I shall no longer apply to the proceedings pending before the Court of Justice on 22 June 2011. "

Faymann