The Iceberg for breaking newsletters

[Balaton]

decision 1180 / 2018 (A1, POLICIES)

Number 1180/2018

THE COURT OF ARIUS PAGO

A1' Political Department

COMPILED by Judges: Ioannis Giannakopoulos, Vice-President of the Supreme Court (obstructed by the Vice-President of the Supreme Court Georgios Lekkas), Altana Kokkovou, Ioannis Balitsaris, Angeliki Tzavara and Thomas Gatzogiannis, Areopagites.
MEETED publicly in his audience, on February 26, 2018, in the presence of Secretary Georgios Fistouris, to try the case between:
The appellant - to whom the summons: Th. S. of A., resident of ..., who was represented by his attorney Petros Hortareas and filed motions.
The appellant - caller: 1) Anonymous Company with the name "FOOTBALL MATCH PREDICTION ORGANIZATION S.A. - OPAP S.A.", based in Peristeri Attica and legally represented, which was represented by Attorney-at-law of Lambro Kitsaras, who revoked his statement from 23/2/2018 for representation pursuant to article 242 par. 2 of the Civil Code. appeared in person and filed motions.
The summons of the appellants-defendants: 2) An Anonymous Company with the name "ANONYMOS TETERIIA SATIOS ORGANIZATION, OPERATIOS AND PROVOLIS BETHIMATOS", which is based in Neo Heraklion, Attica and is legally represented, 3) A Consortium with the name "...", which is based in ... and is legally represented, 4) Company with the name "..." (...) which is based in ... and is legally represented, 5) Company Anonyme with the name "..." which is based in .. .and is legally represented, which were represented by attorneys Dionysios Skaltsa and Dimos Papadimos and filed motions.
The legal dispute began with the action of the already appellant from 19/8/2004, which was filed in the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Athens and was co-litigated with the additional intervention from 10/1/2005 of the already appellants under items 2-5. The decisions were issued: 2412/2006 final of the same Court and 6377/2007 of the Court of Appeal of Athens. The annulment of the last decision was requested by the respondents under elements 2-5 with their application of 20/2/2008 and the respondent under element 1 with her application of 25/2/2008, on which 1252/2010 were respectively issued and 1251/2010 decisions of the A2' Department of the Supreme Court which annulled the 6377/2007 decision of the Athens Court of Appeal and referred the case for further adjudication to the same Court composed of other judges. Following this, decision 5189/2012 of the Athens Court of Appeal was issued, the annulment of which was requested by the appellant with his application dated 21/5/2014, upon which decision 1062/2015 was issued by the A'1 Department of the Supreme Court, which he referred to Full Plenary Session of the Supreme Court for the persons mentioned in the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth reasons of the request of TH.S. in their respective parts for annulment of the decision no. 5189/2012 of the Court of Appeal of Athens.
The 12/2017 decision of the Full Plenary of the Supreme Court was issued, which rejected the referred fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth grounds of appeal, in their respective parts, and referred the case to the A1 Political Department of the Supreme Court, to decide as to the other grounds of appeal. The case was brought back for discussion by the first already respondent with its call of 22/8/2017.
During the discussion of this application, pronounced by the panel, the parties appeared, as noted above. Areopagitis Reporter Altana Kokkovou read her report from 5/12/2014, in which she recommended that the considered appeal be rejected.
The appellant's attorney asked for the application to be accepted, the appellants' attorneys for its rejection and each for the other party to be ordered to pay court costs.

 

[Balaton]

YOU THINKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
With the 22-8-2017 summons of the first respondent company with the name "FOOTBALL MATCH PREDICTION ORGANIZATION SA" legally brought before the present section of the Supreme Court for discussion the 21-5-2014 appeal request of the first of the defendants the summons , Th. S., against the no. 5189/2012 of the final decision of the Court of Appeal of Athens, for the examination of the other reasons thereof, after the rejection with no. 12/2017 decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of those referred to it with no. 1062/2015 decision of its fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth reasons, according to their respective part from no. 1 of article 559 of the Criminal Code and the referral of the case before him. With the considered appeal, the no. 5189/2012 final decision of the Court of Appeal of Athens, which was issued against the parties during the regular procedure, after the annulment of the previous no. 6377/2007 of this decision with no. 1251 and 1252/2010 decisions of this Court. With this decision (6377/2007) the appeals from 19-6-2006 and 27-6-2006 respectively of the defendant and the additional intervenors in her favor and already appealed against the final decision no. 2412/2006 of the Multi-member Court of First Instance of Athens, this decision disappeared, the additional intervention in favor of the defendant was accepted from 10-1-2005 and the action of the already appellant against the first respondent from 19-8-2004 was rejected, with which he claimed that while he had took part in the game "GO BET" with six separate tickets, in which he played the same combination of teams, each of which was successful and won the maximum amount of €733.675,72 and a total of €4.402.054,32, she paid him only the one slip and requested, for the reasons mentioned therein, that it be recognized that she is obliged to pay him the remaining amount of €3.668.378,60 with legal interest. In the sense of article 559 no. 1 of the Civil Code, a violation of a rule of substantive law, which establishes the corresponding ground for appeal, exists when the rule of law was either interpreted incorrectly, i.e. the court of substance gave it a meaning different from the true one, or it was not applied , while the conditions for its application were met, or it was applied, while these were not met, or it was applied incorrectly (All AP 7/2006, 4/2005).
Therefore, according to the above distinctions, the violation of the rule of substantive law, which leads to incorrect legal reasoning and, by extension, to incorrect application of the law, manifests itself either as a false interpretation of the rule of law or as an incorrect subordination of the circumstances of the individual case to it. Thus, with the above ground of appeal, which in order to be certain, both the provision of the substantive law that was violated and the legal error attributed to the contested decision must be specified in the appeal (OlAP 20/2005), the errors of the court of substance are checked against the assessment of the legal validity of the lawsuit or the claims (objections, counterclaims) of the parties, as well as the legal errors during the investigation of the essence of the dispute, so in order to determine the relevant reason, the relevant admissions of the appellant must be set out in the appeal decision. In this case from the admissible, according to article 561 par. 2 KPolD, an overview of the contested decision, it appears that the Court of Appeal accepted the following: "On June 9, 2004, Wednesday, the plaintiff took part in the game "PAME BET" of the defendant Organization (OPAP) filling in the same agency as the agent of OPAP, C. I., which is located on street ... no. …, at ….., six (6) separate participation slips, paying the agent a fee of 1,5 euros for each slip and a total of 9 euros. In particular, he completed the submissions with reference by him with no. ...0, ...1, ...2, ...3, ...4 and ...5 admit cards at 12:12:13 PM, at 12:12:45 PM at 12:13:06 pm at 12:13:23 pm at 12:13:43 pm and at 12:14:03 p.m. of the same day, respectively. These slips were sent by the above agent, via his computer, to the defendant's main computer at 12:12:28 p.m., at 12:12:59 p.m., at 12:13:20 p.m. .p.m., at 12:13:38 p.m., at 12:13:57 p.m. and at 12:14:17 PM, respectively. The claimant selected the "single game" by filling in the following on the first slip: he selected ten (10) football matches, which is the maximum number of match selections allowed, placing in the left column of the bet slip the matches with sequential numbers 334, 335, 342 , 344, 345, 346, 351, 353, 354 and 361 and in the corresponding ten (10) boxes in the right column he put the points TEL-2, TEL-X, TEL-1, TEL-X, TEL-2, TEL- X, TEL-X, TEL-X, TEL-1 and TEL-X respectively, which were his predictions for the outcome of each selected match. OPAP's predetermined odds for each of the matches selected by the claimant were as follows: 1) for match 334, 5.00, 2) for match 335, 3.30, 3) for match 342, 6.25, 4) for match 344 match, 3.30, 5) for 345 match, 5.00, 6) for 346 match, 4.75, 7) for 351 match, 4.25, 8) for 353 match, 3.00, 9) for 354 match, 2.10 and 10) for the 361st match, 3.30. Also, the plaintiff chose the number five (5) as a multiplier. The exact same combination of games, selected points and multiplier was repeated by the plaintiff in five (5) more tickets. According to the terms of the game, the claimant paid for each ticket the value of the column, 0,30 euros, multiplied by the multiplier he chose (5), that is, per ticket, the amount of (0,30 euros X 5) = 1,50 euros and, in total, for the six (6) tickets, the amount of (1,50 euros X 6) = 9 euros. The above six (6) tickets, submitted by the plaintiff consecutively in a period of approximately two (2) minutes of the hour, were accepted by the central computer system of the defendant (OPAP) and the mark "E" was placed in the printing area of ​​each one. . The day after the end of the participation in the above game (10-6-2004) the "ANONIMI ETERIIA ETERISIA STOSIS, OPERATIOS AND PROVOLIS BETHIMATON", as the administrator of the game, addressed to the defendant (OPAP) its letter of 10-6-2004, with which requested the application of article 10 of the General Regulation of the Operation of Pre-Determined Betting Games given that the above slips of the plaintiff were submitted instead of a slip, with the obvious purpose of bypassing the special procedure for accepting bets and paying out winnings greater than the maximum stipulated. Following this letter, the same company also addressed to OPAP its letter dated 11-6-2004 in which it stated, among other things, that the short period of time (22 seconds on average) which intervened between the submission of the slips and the repeated choice of predictors and multiplier prove that these slips constitute a division of a single bet, in order to pay winnings beyond the maximum provided by article 10 of the regulation and that said division did not allow the application of the special procedure of article 5, given that reduced the per-issue risk to one-sixth of that. After the end of the tender, on 11-6-2004, all the provisions of the plaintiff, i.e. the combination of teams, which had recorded in the above six (6) participation slips, was a complete success. As soon as the plaintiff was informed on 11-6-2004 of the success of his tickets, he visited the above agency and went with the agent to the competent department of OPAP, in order to follow the legal procedure of collecting his profits. The competent service of OPAP attached to each of the six (6) slips the corresponding payment requests and, specifically, for the one with no. ...0 slip with no. ...18 payment request, for the no. ...1 slip with no. ...31 payment request, for the no. ...2 slip with no. ...26 payment request, for the no. 5...3 ticket with no. ...27 payment request, for the no. ...4 slip with no. ...59 payment request and for the no. ...5 slip with no. 3234435948 payment request and advised the plaintiff to go to Emporiki Bank and collect his winnings within two (2) working days. On June 16, 2004, the plaintiff went to …. Bank on the street ….. where the responsible employee paid him only one (1) of the six (6) slips (namely the one with no. ...0 ticket), paying him the amount of 697.017 euros, that is, the maximum amount of profit per ticket of 733.675,72 euros, minus the tax of 36.658,65 euros. At the same time, the employee of the Bank informed the plaintiff that the remaining five [5] vouchers were "blocked" in the computers and she could not pay them and, in her related phone call to the defendant (OPAP), with a question as to why the rest were not paid five (5) vouchers, he received the answer that these vouchers would not be paid and that the plaintiff had to go to OPAP to be informed about this. During the plaintiff's visit to the defendant's offices, he was informed by his employee that the Board of Directors of OPAP, relying on the Organization's Internal Regulations, made a decision not to pay the remaining five (5) bills and this decision could be made in writing by his attorney at his (plaintiff's) application. In fact, the plaintiff submitted through his attorney, on 18-6-2004, the no. prot. ....6/ 18.6.2004 his application, with which he requested the immediate and full payment of the remaining five (5) bills and, in the event of OPAP's refusal, the latter to grant him a copy of the corresponding opinion of his legal department on which his denial was supported. The defendant OPAP with its reply letter dated 1-3-7 to the plaintiff stated the following: "In response to your request of 2004-18-6, we inform you that OPAP S.A. is obliged to implement the applicable our company legislation and in particular article 2004 in conjunction with article 10 of the GENERAL REGULATION OF FIXED RATE BETTING (joint Ministerial Decision 5/FEK, 29159/1427) and therefore paid you one of the six tickets, as specifically defined and provided for ". According to article 1 par. 3 of the General Regulation provides that "the participation of the players in the predetermined performance betting games is free under the condition of the full and unreserved acceptance by the participants of the provisions of the relevant existing legislative framework of Law 2433/1996, Presidential Decree 250/1998, of the Present General Regulation, the special Conduct Regulation set by OPAP for each "Predetermined Return Betting Game" as well as the special terms and conditions set for this purpose by OPAP each time". It turned out that in the disputed slips, submitted by the plaintiff, the terms of participation in the competition are clearly described, among which the following are mentioned: "Participation in betting game competitions requires the full, absolute and unreserved acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Legislation, of Regulation of the Operation of Fixed Odds Betting Games, the Regulation of the Conduct of each game, as well as the conditions mentioned in the Program Form. Betting is allowed up to 10 minutes before the start of the first timed event of the player's choice of events. The price of the column is 0,30 EURO and profits over 146,74 EURO per column are subject to a 5% tax. Maximum betting amount per ticket is set at 29.347,03 EUROS. The maximum profit paid per ticket is set at 733.675,72 EUROS. The ticket is only valid if the letter E is printed on it followed by date-time and code number. Ticket cancellation can be done up to 5 minutes after ticket validation and from the same Agency Terminal. Profits are collected by any agency, unless they exceed the applicable limit, in which case they are paid by the banks with which OPAP cooperates. No profit is paid if the winning ticket is lost. Unclaimed profits are barred after 3 months. Deadline for submitting an objection 6 days from the end date of the competition. By submitting the ticket to the agency, the player accepts the above as binding.

 

[Balaton]

In addition, in the program of the game, which the claimant received from the above agency, the terms of participation are mentioned, namely: Participation in betting game competitions requires full, absolute and unreserved acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Legislation, of the Games Operation Regulation Fixed Odds Bets, the Rules of Conduct of each game, as well as the conditions mentioned in the Program Form .... Maximum betting amount per ticket is set at 29.347,03 EUROS. The maximum profit paid per ticket is set at 733.675,72 EUROS... By depositing the ticket at the agency, the player accepts the above as binding. Detailed information can be provided by the agent". Also, the applicable terms and rules of the game are described in detail in a special form entitled "Everything about the PAME BET" which has been distributed to all agents with the aim of distributing it to all the players of the PAME BET, in which (form) explicit reference is made to the entire applicable legislative framework. In particular, the "special bet acceptance procedure" of article 5 of the aforementioned Regulation is defined in the relevant special form "Everything about the PAME BET", which the claimant received from the above OPAP agency and provides that, in the event that the amount that is bet exceeds a certain limit, a special approval procedure must be followed, which consists in the negotiation of the elements of this bet, with the ultimate goal of reaching an agreement and finally validating a new bet - product of the negotiation. That is, the ticket to be validated for this bet is not rejected without further ado, but OPAP requires the negotiation of the selection details of the ticket with the player through the agent. Furthermore, it has been shown that OPAP's Fixed Odds bets, like the said "GO BET" game, involving football matches, have their odds determined in advance by OPAP. The initial odds are communicated to the players before the start of the game, while, in the course of its development, they may be modified, but, in any case, the player, by depositing his bet, knows in advance the amount he will win , if his predictions are verified," without having to wait for the end of the contest. The completion by a player or a group of players of several participation forms, without, in fact, any limitation as to the content or the type of options contained in them in the same or in different agencies, even in different cities of Greece, is, in principle, permissible, as can be seen from the above OPAP fixed odds betting regulation and the special instruction form distributed to players. But with the above provision of article 10 par. 1 ed. b' of the regulation regulates specific prohibited behavior of the player, regardless of known skill or special knowledge, which consists in the case of multiple submission of participation slips to the same or more agencies in order to bypass the special acceptance procedure (art. 5 of the regulation) with the player and exceeding the maximum profit limit of 250.000.000 drachmas per ticket. That is, when, although there are reasons for a special agreement with the player, which consists in negotiating to modify any of his options (such as in the case of exceeding the betting or profit limits), he proves that, by using such methods that prevent or do not allow the defendant (OPAP) to initiate the process of concluding a special agreement, acts in violation of the above provisions of articles 5 par. 2 and 10 par.2 of the regulation, in this case OPAP is entitled to define as the total sum of profits the maximum profit of 250.000.000 Drach. The defendant (OPAP), according to article 5 par. 1 of the "General Regulation for the operation of OPAP S.A. fixed performance betting games", reserves without obligation to justify its decision the right to accept or not accept any bet at any time, while, according to paragraph 2 of the same article, if at the discretion of OPAP it is determined that there are reasons for a special agreement with the player, a special acceptance procedure applies, which consists of negotiating to modify any of the player's options. In the case under review, the plaintiff, who for a number of years participated in the "LET'S BET FOOTBALL" game, had become aware, as an experienced player, by completing each ticket, of the printed terms of participation, among which, that the maximum expected profit per participation ticket is the amount of 733.675,72 euros (250.000.000 Drach.), and by submitting the ticket, you accept all the terms of the relevant legislation and the terms of the Regulation. He made the above specific choices with a budgeted return at the limit of the maximum profit allowed and attributed by OPAP per ticket, knowing from his calculations, as an experienced player, the exact returns of the identical deposited tickets and that each ticket, in case of success, would bring him the maximum predicted profit. Thus, the plaintiff, although he knew that, in case of verification of his choices, the profit per ticket would be the amount [ (0,30 euros - column value)- X (5,00 X 3,30 X 6,25 X 3,30 .5,00 X 4,75 X 4,25 X 3,00 X 2,10 X 3,30 X 5) = the product of the predetermined odds of each match X 1.071.213,70 -selected multiplier-] = 733.675,72 euros, he expected to collect only the maximum profit allowed per ticket (€XNUMX), since he knew that he was not entitled to a profit greater than that. Besides, he (plaintiff) never considered that he was entitled to the amount beyond the maximum amount per profit slip, for which, as he knew, it would be required to comply with the special approval procedure, the application of which he did not request from OPAP, as a result of the aforementioned tickets to be accepted by the OPAP system and to collect for one ticket only the maximum profit, according to article 10 par. 1 of the General Regulation. The plaintiff's choice of the above method of participation, i.e. by completing the same options in six identical slips (worth 1,5 euros each), instead of one slip (worth nine euros) was made knowing that the upper limit profit per ticket amounts to 733.633,72 euros and that with the way he chose to play he could exceed it by avoiding the above special approval process. Thus, he saw that, in the case in which he will be successful, the participation slips will not appear as a single slip, as a result of which he will have more profits, i.e.
Therefore, the claimant knew, as an experienced player, that by completing all his selections on one slip (worth nine euros), instead of six slips (worth 1,50 euros each), he would once collect the stated in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the regulation maximum profit regardless of what the total profit yield would be. Given that, in the event that he completed all his options on one ticket (worth nine euros), the plaintiff would not be able to collect the total amount of €4.402.054,32 (claimed by the plaintiff), but would only receive the maximum amount of profit of 733.675,72 euros (Article 10 of the regulation) regardless of the overall profit performance, since this (bill) would not be accepted by OPAP, because a special negotiation procedure would have to be followed by the plaintiff (Article 5) by OPAP, a fact mentioned in the form distributed to him, the content of which the plaintiff had become aware of. In view of these, it is inferred that the plaintiff knew that his options on six identical tickets would have high returns and he would have to undergo the special negotiation process with OPAP through his agent. The plaintiff, however, in order to avoid the special negotiation procedure with the defendant (OPAP) and to achieve the collection of the maximum profit per ticket six times over, went through this practice in order to exceed and multiply the maximum profit limit known to him per slip and specifically after selecting the maximum selection of matches (10) setting up to one (1) outcome point for each match and a multiplier, he repeated the exact same selections in six (6) entry slips, each of which gave him as a return the maximum profit, claiming that maximum profit six times. The above participation tickets, played by the plaintiff, were, as mentioned above, accepted as valid by the central computerized system of OPAP, a necessary condition for the application of article 10 par. 1 ed. b' of the Regulation. The acceptance of only the slips by the system and not initially rejecting the slips by the defendant's system (OPAP) cannot establish the legality of the above participation of the plaintiff in the game. Besides, the possibility of control by OPAP at this stage, in order to request from the latter, the observance of a "special procedure for accepting the bet" of the participating player, is possible only in the event that a player attempts to exceed the limits with a ticket, in which case in this case it will run directly against the prohibitions and to achieve this it will have to adhere to the special negotiation to reach a special agreement. However, in the event that a player, as in this case the plaintiff, attempts to exceed the limits by depositing many similar slips, the possibility of control by the defendant (OPAP) is limited, taking into account the huge volume of slips deposited and the as a rule anonymous of them. Then, however, after the end of the game, when the winning tickets are less than the deposited tickets and the winning players are known, the defendant (OPAP) has more information at his disposal, in order to check, as the case may be, whether the limits and the special negotiation process have been circumvented by imposing, as it is possible, the maximum predicted profit. As a result of the aforementioned, the prohibition of circumventing the upper limit by submitting more, similar forms was known to the plaintiff, who had received information about it, as mentioned above, from the special form and had the possibility, in any case, to receive information from the regulation, which had been published in the Government Gazette and posted on the internet. After that, the application conditions of sec. b' of par. 1 of article 10 in conjunction with article 5 of the General Regulation, since the plaintiff adopted the above practice in order to circumvent the special agreement related to the maximum profit limit. Given, that he knowingly chose the specific football matches with the corresponding predicted performance and also the specific way of participating in the game, dividing the betting amount of the same matches into several slips on the one hand and the expected profit from the same bet (in excess of the supreme) in more identical slips on the other hand. Therefore, the claim of the defendant and the additional intervenors in his favor, which was proposed at first instance and is reinstated by reason of their appeals, that the plaintiff is only entitled to the maximum allowed profit of one ticket, i.e. 733.675,72 euros, pursuant to the provisions of of articles 10 and 5 of the General Regulation of the Operation of Predetermined Performance Betting Games (joint Ministerial Decision 29159 FEK 1427/2000), is valid". It was also accepted by the Court of Appeal with its same decision that: "the plaintiff, who took part in the above game "LET'S BET" of the defendant on June 9, 2004, foresaw, as mentioned above, with the above chosen way of playing, the withdrawal of the profit from the set of six identical tickets, in violation of the relevant rules of the game, exceeding the contractual limits of his relationship with the defendant to the detriment of the latter, forcing him to exceed the maximum profit paid. With the above behavior, the plaintiff sought to bypass the special procedure of article 5 of the regulation expecting to maximize his profits by taking such (profits), bypassing the limit of the maximum paid profit, which he had contractually accepted within the limits of rights and his obligations from his participation in the game. This fact deprived the defendant of the possibility of negotiating the terms of the plaintiff-player's participation in the game and of the possibility, on his part, of making a decision as to whether the new terms proposed by the player are acceptable, so that by accepting them, a the relevant contract. It was also shown that the defendant in response to the above did not unilaterally and without special reason refuse the return of profits to the plaintiff, but paid him, in application of the relevant terms (art. 10 par. 1 of the regulation), the legal ticket profit. And the provision of subsection 2 of paragraph 1 of article 10 of the regulation does not constitute a limitation of this contractual obligation of the first subsection, but a regulation of its protection and application, in the event that contractual participants with behaviors and practices subject to good faith and commercial ethics try to bypass it. In other words, the above condition does not introduce a unilateral limitation of the player's achieved profits, as the plaintiff unfoundedly claims, because his profits came from his above behavior, the conditions of participation of which are described in a clear, definite and comprehensible manner in said arrangement. Also, with the above condition, there is no termination of the contract of participation in the game, nor a modification of the contract, because its content is the provision by the contracting defendant organization of the maximum amount of profit per ticket according to the mentioned more specific conditions. And the defendant (OPAP) in the case of application of subsection 2 of article 10, as in the case under consideration, did not withdraw from his contractual obligation, but instead fulfilled it by paying the participant the maximum profit for a ticket..." The Court of Appeal continues further, that "the above provisions of article 5 of the regulation do not constitute, in the sense of element e of article 2 paragraph 7 of Law 2251/1994, a unilateral amendment or termination of the contract without a certain special and important reason . Because, in the case of paragraph 1 of article 5, there is no contractual bond between the parties, since one participant proposes the conclusion of the contract, but the defendant Organization does not accept it and therefore there is no scope of application of the above provisions of the Law. 2251/1994. In the case of par.

 

[Balaton]

Therefore, the contractual relationship established in the above case (par. 2 of article 5 of the regulation) with the participation of a player in the betting game is not governed by pre-formulated general contractual terms (General Terms of Transactions), which the player accepts as a whole without being able to negotiate and shape them, but is the result of negotiation, between the contracting parties, the terms that deviate from the basic terms of participation specified in the Regulations for participation in the game. Besides, this (the application of Article 5) is imposed by the interest of the defendant which lies in the smooth running of the game to serve the interests of all players and the preservation of the economic viability of the bet itself, taking into account that the undistributed profits are channeled to the grant and financing of public benefit actions and in areas of state policy (art. 5 PD 250/1997). In support of this, it should be noted that, in the above predetermined performance game, where the sole criterion of success of a player's choices is not the factor of luck, but that the specific choices of a player involve a degree of predictability based on information, the good assessment of these for each sporting event, the experience with his long-term involvement, obtaining, in case of success, by circumventing the relevant rules of the game, huge profits would lead to a radical reversal of the economic foundations of the participation contract at the expense of OPAP with burdensome consequences at the expense not only of the public benefit destination of his organization, but also at the expense of the other participating players. The occurrence of this risk is intended to be prevented by the said condition (Article 5) of the defendant's regulation, in order to safeguard the public interest, which the defendant is bound to protect in the area of ​​mass games of predetermined or no return. Also, for the risk management of the game, there are restrictions not only on the maximum profit limit and on the submission of multiple identical slips, but also on the amount of betting, i.e. on the right of the organizer to accept betting amounts above a certain limit, i.e. the amount of 10.000.000. 29.347,03 drachmas or XNUMX euros....... Thus, the said provisions of the Regulation, which are attacked as abusive, do not constitute a deviation from the provisions of the indemnity law in a way that disturbs the contractual balance between consumer and supplier. On the contrary, the relevant provisions not only do not constitute a deviation, but have been put in place precisely to protect each of the contracting parties from any non-contractual and abusive behavior that disturbs the contractual balance between them. In view of the aforementioned, the above terms are not abusive, according to the provisions of Law. 2251/1994, as long as they are clear, comprehensible, specified both in the defendant's regulation and in the participation slips in the above game and do not result in a significant disturbance of the balance of the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, to the detriment of the plaintiff, nor do they limit or excessively exclude the liability of the defendant, nor do they reserve to him the right to unilaterally modify or terminate the contract, nor does it violate the principle of transparency". Based on these admissions, the Court of Appeal accepted the appeals of the defendant and of the additional intervenors in her favor and already the respondents and, after disappearing the first instance decision, which had accepted the appellant's action, rejected the one, in which it stated that while he had taken part in the game "LET'S BET" with six (6) separate participation tickets, in which she played the same combination of teams, which were successful and won €733.675,72 each and a total of €4.402.054, the defendant and already the first respondent paid him one note and refuses to pay the others contrary to the contract and asked to be recognized as obliged to pay him the remaining amount of €32 with legal interest. In particular, it rejected the action, after accepting the claim of the defendant and already respondent, which was based on the provisions of articles 5 par.2 and 10 par.2 of the "General Regulation for the Operation of Pre-Determined Betting Games", according to which she was entitled to set as the total sum of profits of the appellant the amount of 250.000.000 drachmas (€733,675,72), because it has been proven that by completing the above six (6) forms with similar provisions, he acted in circumvention of these provisions, as far as he knew, that his options, in case of success, would have returns that would exceed the profit limits and in order to avoid in this case the special agreement, which consists in negotiating to modify his options, he went through this practice, completing six (6) bulletins with similar provisions. With what it accepted and as it ruled, the Court of Appeal did not violate the provision of article 361 of the Civil Code, since the first respondent by defining as the total sum of profits of the respondent the maximum profit of 250.000.000 drachmas (€733.675,72) did not proceed unilaterally and unjustifiably altering or canceling the contract of participation between them in the "LET'S BET" game, but he did so in application of the above articles 5 and 10 of the "General Regulation of the Operation of Fixed Odds Betting Games", due to their practical circumvention, which the appellant moved. Therefore, the first, second and third, according to the relevant parts, grounds of the appeal, with which objection is presented by no.
In the sense of art. 559 no. 19 of the Civil Code, the decision has no legal basis and the corresponding ground for appeal is established, when from its assumptions, which are included in the minor sentence of its legal reasoning and constitute its rationale, do not arise at all or the facts are insufficiently or contradictorily stated, in which the court of substance based its judgment on an issue with a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial, as a result of which it cannot be checked whether in this particular case the conditions of the rule of substantive law that was applied or whether the conditions of the one that was not applied were met. (OLAP 1/1999). For the procedural completeness of this reason, it must be stated what the lack of a legal basis (complete lack, inadequacy or contradiction) of the grounds of the contested decision consists of and in particular, when a complaint is raised for insufficient or unclear grounds, it must be specified in the appeal, which reasons and why they are insufficient or unclear, what additional incidents should have been mentioned, so that the reasons are sufficient and clear, without general expressions that "he has insufficient or unclear reasons" sufficient (All AP 20/2005, 32/1996 ), in addition, the issue to which they relate and which exerts a significant influence on the outcome of the trial and for which, according to the appellant, the decision has no legal basis, the provision that was violated, as well as the factual assumptions of the decision must be mentioned. In the present case, with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth, according to the relevant parts, grounds of the appeal, the appellant claims that the challenged decision lacks a legal basis, because the Court of Appeal, with insufficient and unclear reasons, rejected the independent factual allegations of his and having a significant influence on the outcome of the trial, that the terms of the provisions of articles 5 and 10 of the "General Regulation of the Operation of Fixed Odds Betting Games", on which the claim of the respondents was based, that he, because he acted in circumvention of these , is entitled to the maximum allowed profit of one ticket, i.e. 733.675,72 euros and not that of the remaining five tickets of the contested game, which he requested in his lawsuit, should not be applied, because they are invalid, void and abusive, as objects in the provisions of articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 of the Civil Code and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of Law 2251/1994 and thus accepted the appeals of the respondents, annulled the first instance decision and rejected his action as unfounded in substance. These reasons, with which complaint is presented by no. 19 of article 559 of the Civil Code, worded as above, are rejected as vague, because the appeal does not specify what the insufficient and unclear reasons for the decision are, as well as what additional incidents it should have contained, so that they are sufficient and clear. The reason for appeal from article 559 no. 8 of the Civil Code, which aims to ensure the debating system (art. 106 of the Civil Code), but also the principle of hearing the parties (art. 110§2 KPolD), is established when the court of substance disregards the law and apparently incorrectly assesses the procedural documents (art. 561§2 of the Criminal Code) either he took into account things that were not proposed and have a material effect on the outcome of the trial (OlAP 13/1995) or he did not take into account things that were proposed and also have a material effect on the outcome of the trial, meaning the things independent claims of the parties that tend to the establishment, cancellation or obstruction of the practitioner with the lawsuit, objection or resistance of a substantive or procedural right (OlAP 3/1997, AP 1225/2004, 1530/2001), i.e. claims that formed or accordingly were capable of form the operative part of the contested decision (OlAP 2/1998, AP 1072-3/200, 864/2003), and should, in the case of allegations that were not taken into account, while they should have been taken into account, they should have been proposed as admissible to the court of substance ( OlAP 2/2001, 12/2000) and even by the already appellant (AP 881/1988). In particular, if a decision of the appellate court is challenged for the above reason, the claim that was not evaluated should have been admissibly proposed to the first instance court, but also reinstated admissibly (with a main or additional reason for appeal or accordingly, according to art. 240 of the Civil Code, with the proposals) and in the second degree (AP 1011/1994) and this should be mentioned in the appeal (AP 760/2004, 539/2003, 885/1994), unless it falls under the exceptions of art. 562 par. 2 of the Civil Code (OLAP 43/1990) or it is a claim that is admissible according to art. 527 of the Criminal Code was proposed for the first time in the appeal trial, which must also be clarified in the appeal (AP 354/2011). However, this reason for appeal is not substantiated, if the court took into account the claim that was proposed and rejected it for any reason, formal or substantive, even if its rejection is not explicit, but is inferred from the content of the decision (OlAP 11/ 1996, AP 148/2009). In the present case, the appellant with the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth, according to the relevant parts, reasons of the appeal, asserts that the Court of Appeal did not take into account the independent factual allegations submitted before it on behalf of the appellant and having a significant influence on the outcome of the trial, that the terms of the provisions of articles 5 and 10 of the "General Regulation for the Operation of Fixed Odds Betting Games", on which the claim of the respondents was based, that he, because he acted in circumvention of them, is entitled to the maximum allowed profit of one ticket, i.e. 733.675,72 euros and not that of the remaining five tickets of the contested game, which he requested in his lawsuit, should not be applied, because they are invalid, invalid and abusive, as objects in the provisions of the articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 of the Civil Code and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of Law 2251/1994 and thus accepted the appeals of the respondents, annulled the first instance decision and rejected his action as unfounded in substance. These reasons with the above content, with which objection is presented by no. 8 b of article 559 of the Civil Code, are rejected as unfounded.

 

[Balaton]

The provision of article 559 no. 10 of the Civil Code grounds for appeal, after the abolition of the second case, which provided for the possibility of appeal, if the court accepted things that have a material effect on the outcome of the trial as true "without ordering proof of them", with article 17 para. 2 of n. 2915/2001, as well as after the repeal of the provision of article 341 of the Civil Code. for the possibility of issuing a preliminary ruling and the application of article 270 of the Civil Code in all cases, with article 14 par. 1 of the same law, has limited application in the case where "the court accepted things that have a material effect on the outcome of the trial as true without proof", i.e. when the court does not state from which evidence it has derived the proof or no proof has been adduced (AP 273/2011,1700, 2009/XNUMX). In the present case, as can be seen from the contested decision, the Court of Appeal formed its judgment and reached its evidentiary conclusion, according to which, after accepting the appeals against the first instance decision, it abolished this decision and rejected the appellant's action, since took into account the affidavits of the parties' witnesses, the legally subpoenaed documents, as well as the no. 500/11-1-2005 and 591/12-1-2005 affidavits before the Justice of the Peace of Athens, which the appellant presented and relied on, after a formal and timely summons of the appellants. Therefore, the contested decision was not accepted as true things that have a material effect on the outcome of the trial without proof and the first, according to its relevant part, ground of appeal with which the opposites are supported is rejected as unfounded. From the provisions of 562 par. 2 of the Civil Code, it is concluded that it is an inadmissible ground for appeal, based on an allegation, which was not proposed or was not legally proposed in the court of substance, unless it is a) a violation that cannot be raised in the court of substance b) an error that arises from the decision itself and c) for a claim concerning public order. This inadmissibility refers to all grounds for appeal of Article 559 of the Civil Code. The above provision is a manifestation of the fundamental principle, that the Supreme Court checks the legality of the decision of the court of substance based on the factual and legal situation, which the substantive judge should have taken into account, and establishes a special condition for the admissibility of the grounds of appeal, the contribution of which must be derived from the appeal. In other words, it must be stated in this, that the allegation that forms the basis of the invoked ground of appeal had been legally proposed to the court of substance, the manner and time of the proposal or reinstatement of the allegation should be determined, so that it can be decided by the appellate court whether it was admissible and legal, and if the court examined the case on its merits, the appeal must also state the critical relevant assumptions under which the alleged violation took place. In order to investigate the merits of the grounds of appeal, an overview of the procedural documents of the same or another trial is permitted, in accordance with article 561 par. 2 KPolD. In this case the appellant with the seventh reason of the appeal, citing violations by nos. 1, 8 and 19 of article 559 of the Civil Code, requests the annulment of the contested decision, because the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant and already the first respondent was not obliged to pay him the predetermined return of the remaining five (5) tickets, based on the provisions 5 and 10 of its Rules of Procedure, thus violating the principle of proportionality constitutionally established by article 25, which he presented before the Court of Appeal as a respondent, since the defendant and already the first respondent nevertheless withheld the value (consideration) of the above tickets, which in this specific case is small, but it could easily amount to millions of euros. Further with the last plea of ​​the appeal similarly citing violations by nos. 1, 8 and 19 of article 559 of the Civil Code, requests the annulment of the contested decision, because the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant and already the first respondent was not obliged to pay him the predetermined return of the remaining five (5) tickets, based on the provisions 5 and 10 of its Regulation, thus violating the ECHR and in particular its article 6, which establishes the principle of "fair trial", which he presented before the Court of Appeal as an appellant, since the above provisions of the Regulation, which establish the right of the defendant and already the first respondent's acceptance or non-acceptance of any bet at any time and without an obligation to justify exclude the existence of a "fair trial". All the above reasons are rejected in advance as inadmissible, since from the admissibility, according to article 561 par. 2 of the Civil Code, an overview of the appellant's proposal documents before the Court of Appeal does not show that he had argued that the above provisions of the Regulation violate the principle of proportionality, as well as the principle of "fair trial" arising from the provision of Article 6 of the ECHR. Finally, for the same reason, the first and third, according to their respective parts, reasons of the appeal from nos. 1. already the first respondent against him to make a unilateral, unjustified and time-consuming alteration of the contract between them. And this, because similarly, from the review of the appellant's proposal documents before the Court of Appeal, it does not appear that he had put forward these allegations. Consequently, the above reasons of the considered appeal must be rejected, for the discussion of which the case was referred to the present section, after the issuance of the no. 12/2017 of the decision of the Full Plenary of this Court, by which the reasons referred to in these were rejected, as well as this one in its entirety. Furthermore, it must be ordered, according to par. 4 of article 495 of the Criminal Code, the introduction of the fee of three hundred (300) euros, paid by the appellant, as stated in the 382/2014 filing report of the appeal filed by the clerk of the Athens Court of Appeal, in the Public Treasury.

FOR THOSE REASONS
Rejects the 21-5-2014 application for annulment of no. 5189/2012 final decision of the Court of Appeal of Athens.
Orders the introduction of the tax of three hundred (300) euros, paid by the appellant to the Public Treasury.
It offsets the legal costs between the parties.
ADJUDGED and decided in Athens on April 19, 2018.
PUBLISHED in Athens at a public meeting, in his audience, on June 25, 2018.

THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY

 

[Balaton]

And because you might think what the guy played. This was the full day's schedule and selected matches highlighted in green.

 

[giannisthegreek]

So say I play one of the crazy cards I usually play and I write it here.. if 5,10,20 people follow with the same cards and we win and pass the cap together then what happens? Won't we get along?

Sent from my MYA-L41 using Tapatalk

 

[Pro]

After all, the press and the 6 tickets were not paid?
I read it all but I don't have it with lawyers.

 

[giannisthegreek]

He wasn't paid from what I understand

 

[Balaton]

If 10 or 20 people play, the same tickets will be paid. If a family of adults goes with one ticket each person in hand will NOT be paid, if one goes with 5 tickets it is not paid.

 

[giannisthegreek]

If 10 or 20 people play, the same tickets will be paid. If a family of adults goes with one ticket each person in hand will NOT be paid, if one goes with 5 tickets it is not paid.

View attachment 27006

The way he writes it, I don't think they should be paid

 

[Balaton]

Accordingly. If, for example, 10 people who do not know each other and one of them is in Xanthi, the other in Crete and the other 8 in Athens play the exact same ticket, will they not be paid? With this logic, no one should bet on OPAP again

 

[tarantules]

I don't know if at that time, i.e. in 2004, this particular player had knowledge that there was a chance that he would not be paid by breaking the slips into 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a big return and you really believed that the combination (otherwise what's the reason to sit down and break the slips), didn't you think of the simplest thing, that is to take a double chance of 2, a favorite that is different in every slip? How many of them would break? and 1,02 is out of the question. At least half of them, don't say all of them, he would do it, so mani mani he would have 6 in his hand in the worst of the worst cases.
It's a shame and again a shame that some of you have the ability and don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
This is what I've been doing for years now on the big tickets with crazy returns. Regardless of the fact that it didn't happen to make me the honor to get paid

 

[Balaton]

I don't know if at that time, i.e. in 2004, this particular player had knowledge that there was a chance that he would not be paid by breaking the slips into 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a big return and you really believed that the combination (otherwise what's the reason to sit down and break the slips), didn't you think of the simplest thing, that is to take a double chance of 2, a favorite that is different in every slip? How many of them would break? and 1,02 is out of the question. At least half of them, don't say all of them, he would do it, so mani mani he would have 6 in his hand in the worst of the worst cases.
It's a shame and again a shame that some of you have the ability and don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
This is what I've been doing for years now on the big tickets with crazy returns. Regardless of the fact that it didn't happen to make me the honor to get paid

Again, they are covered by the condition they have set because they also mention the case of similar options.

 

[tarantules]

Again, they are covered by the condition they have set because they also mention the case of similar options.

Where exactly is this term? Can we find him? It has not come to my attention. If it is true then they are unacceptable.

 

[Balaton]

Go above and read post number 10, I have uploaded a photo of the condition that applies to maximum profits. Read it and you will understand. It's so abusive that if 10 people who don't know each other play the exact same cards from different regions it's up to OPAP if they get paid, claiming they worked collectively as if the player has to smell their fingernails to know what the players are going to play other players in the Territory!

 

[tarantules]

Yes, you're right, it's written... After all, it's a big mess over there...
However, I thought of another way to bypass this restriction, much more cunning.
But I am not mentioning him here because many people read us so it is not at all unlikely that they will include him in some future supplementary term....

 

[Balaton]

Yes, you're right, it's written... After all, it's a big mess over there...
However, I thought of another way to bypass this restriction, much more cunning.
But I am not mentioning him here because many people read us so it is not at all unlikely that they will include him in some future supplementary term....

Exact score combination but since the options are similar no matter what you do they've got the point covered...

 

[giannisthegreek]

If 10,20 people follow a column I will give it is considered a collective move so no cash

 

[tarantules]

Exact score combination but since the options are similar no matter what you do they've got the point covered...

Ba, there is something they can't tell you. Unfortunately I do not want to mention it for obvious reasons.