The organization of poker tournaments where only non-cash prizes of low value (here: up to €60.00) are offered as winnings, and participants pay only a contribution towards expenses (here: €15) instead of a stake that flows into the winnings, falls under commercial gaming law, not the State Treaty on Gambling. The competent authority for prohibiting such commercial activity, provided the conditions stipulated by the Trade Regulation Act are met, is the respective municipality. This was ruled by the 1st Chamber of the Trier Administrative Court in a judgment dated February 3, 2009.
The decision was based on a lawsuit filed by a poker tournament organizer against a notice from the Trier Supervisory and Service Directorate, which, relying on the provisions of the State Treaty on Gambling, had prohibited the organizer from conducting poker tournaments, even to the extent described above. The 1st Chamber of the Trier Administrative Court overturned this notice, reasoning that the ADD was not competent to prohibit such poker tournaments. The court stated that the specific design of the poker tournaments in question did not constitute gambling within the meaning of the State Treaty on Gambling, because the €15 contribution towards expenses merely served as an entry fee and had no influence on the non-cash prizes offered. The prerequisite that the individual's chance of winning arises from the participants' stakes was absent. A stake must be made with the hope of receiving an equal or higher-value prize if one wins, and with the fear that the stake will be lost to the opponent if one loses. However, since this was not the case for the type of poker tournaments in question, it constituted another game with a chance of winning according to § 33 d of the Trade Regulation Act. The responsibility for their regulation lies with the municipalities.
This decision refers exclusively to poker tournaments that are subject to the strict limitations described above. It does not address the question of the legality of the state gambling monopoly.
The parties involved have one month to file an appeal with the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, which was admitted by the Administrative Court due to its fundamental importance.
We will report further.
Judgment of the Trier Administrative Court dated February 3, 2009 – 1 K 592/08.TR –
Source: Press release from the Trier Administrative Court dated 17.02.2009
Goldberg Rechtsanwälte
Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Attorney-at-Law and
Specialist Lawyer for Information Technology Law (IT Law)
