The Iceberg for breaking newsletters

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
Sophistication 1180 / 2018 (A1, POLICIES)

1180 / 2018 number

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

A1 'Political Department

Held by the Judges: Ioannis Giannakopoulos, Vice President of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (impeding the Vice President of the Supreme Court George Lekka), Altana Kokkovou, Ioannis Balitsaris, Angeliki Tzavagas, Angeliki Tzavagas.
HAD a public hearing at its hearing on 26 February 2018, in the presence of Registrar George Fistouris, to try the case between:
Of the appellant - the call itself: TH of A., resident ..., who was represented by his attorney Petros Chortareas and made submissions.
Of the Respondent - Calling: 1) Limited Company under the name "FOOTBALL PRESSURE RACING BOARD SA - OPAP SA", based in Peristeri Attica and represented by Peristeri Attikis Lambros Kitsaras Attorney Attorney, who withdrew his statement from 23 / 2 / 2018 for performance under Article 242 par. presented himself in person and submitted proposals.
Of the defendants - the defendant's call: 2) Limited Company under the name "SOFTWARE COMPANY, OPERATION AND PROMOTION COMPANY", headquartered in New Heraklion, X ... ... and is legally represented, 3) Company under the name "..." (...) based in ... and legally represented, 4) Société Anonyme under the name "..." and is legally represented, represented by their attorneys Dionysios Skaltsa and Dim Papademos and submitted proposals.
The lawsuit was initiated by the 19 / 8 / 2004 lawsuit of the appellant, which was lodged with the Multinational Court of First Instance in Athens and joined by 10 / 1 / 2005 additional interference with the 2-5 cases already under appeal. The judgments were delivered: 2412 / 2006 final by the same Court and 6377 / 2007 by the Athens Court of Appeal. Appeal of the last decision was sought by the defendants 2-5 already sued by their request from 20 / 2 / 2008 and the defendant 1 filed by its request 25 / 2 / 2008, on which X respectively X / N and the 1252 / 2010 decisions of the A1251 'Division of the Supreme Court, which quashed the 2010 / 2 judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal and remitted the case for further proceedings to the same Court composed of other judges. Thereafter, the 6377 / 2007 decision of the Athens Court of Appeal was upheld, the appellant appealing with his 5189 / 2012 / 21 application, on which the 5 / 2014 decision of the A '1062 Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal was issued. Plenary of the Supreme Court of Appeal, referring to the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth grounds of the request of the Constitutional Court in their respective part for the annulment of decision 2015 / 1 of the Athens Court of Appeal.
The 12 / 2017 decision of the Plenary Court of the Supreme Court rejecting the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Referrals, respectively, in their respective part, the grounds of appeal and remanded the case to the A1 Political Board for the Supreme Court for the other grounds of appeal. The case was resubmitted for discussion by the first respondent with her 22 / 8 / 2017 call.
At the hearing of this application, which was announced by the panel, the parties were represented, as noted above. Areopagite rapporteur Altana Kokkou read her 5 / 12 / 2014 report, recommending that the appeal be rejected.
The appellant's representative requested that the application be upheld, the appellants' plaintiffs to dismiss it and each of them to order the other party to pay the costs.

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
YOU THINKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
By calling 22-8-2017 the first respondent company under the name "FOOTBALL FITNESS RACING ORGANIZATION SA" is legally brought before this section of the Supreme Court for X to be heard by X , S.C., against no. 21 / 5 final decision of the Athens Court of Appeal, to consider the other pleas in law, dismissed by Decision no. 2014 / 5189 decision of the plenary of the Supreme Court referred to therein by Decision no. 2012 / 12 decision of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth pleas in law, respectively, in Part Nos. 2017 of article 1062 CCLD and referral of the case before it. The present appeal is challenged by Decision no. 2015 / 1 final judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal, which was followed by a dispute between the parties in the ordinary course of action, after the annulment of the former no. 559 / 5189 of its decision no. 2012 and 6377 / 2007 judgments of this Court. This decision (1251 / 1252) upheld the appeals of 2010-6377-2007 and 19-6-2006 respectively of the defendant and the interveners in support of it and of the appellants, against Decision 27 / X The Multinational Court of First Instance of Athens annulled that judgment, granted 6-2006-2412 additional support for the defendant's intervention, and dismissed the action by 2006-10-1 of the appellant already sued against the first respondent, take part in the game "PAY BET" with six separate cards One entry, in which he played the same combination of teams, each having a maximum of 2005 € and a total of 19 € each, paid off only one card and asked for the reasons cited to be recognized. is obliged to pay legally the remaining amount of 8 €. For the purposes of Article 2004 No.733.675,72 Code, an infringement of the substantive law establishing the corresponding ground of appeal exists where the rule of law has either been misinterpreted, that is to say, the court of substance has given a different meaning to it, or not applied it. , while the conditions for its application were either applied, while those were not or were incorrectly applied (All 4.402.054,32 / 3.668.378,60, 559 / 1).
Consequently, in the above discrimination the infringement of the substantive law rule, which leads to incorrect legal reasoning and consequently to the incorrect application of the law, is manifest either as a misinterpretation of the rule of law or as incorrect application of the facts of the individual case. Thus, with the above ground of appeal, which, in order to be certain, the substantive law which has been infringed and the error of law attributed to the contested decision (OLAP 20/2005) must be ascertained in the appellate court, the assessment of the legal merits of the action or the claims (objections, objections) of the parties, as well as the legal errors in the investigation of the substance of the dispute, so that, in order to establish the reason, and the relevant assumptions of the judgment under appeal. In the present case, it is clear from the admissible review of the contested decision, pursuant to Article 561 (2) of the contested decision, that the Court of Appeal accepted the following: "On Wednesday, 9 June 2004, the plaintiff took part in the defendant's" PAME BETWEEN "game. Organization (OPAP) by filling in the same agency of his agent OPAP, GI, located on the street…. …, At… .., six (6) separate entry forms, paying the agent a fee of € 1,5 for each card and a total of € 9. Specifically, complete the submissions by inviting him with the numbers ... 0, ... 1, ... 2, ... 3, ... 4 and ... 5 entry sheets at 12:12:13 pm, 12:12:45 pm, 12:13:06 pm, 12:13:23 pm, 12:13:43 pm and at 12:14:03 pm of the same day, respectively. These reports were sent by the above agent, via his computer, to the defendant's main computer at 12:12:28 pm, 12:12:59 pm, 12:13:20 pm ., at 12:13:38 pm, at 12:13:57 pm. and at 12:14:17 pm, respectively. The plaintiff has chosen the "simple game", filling in the first card: he has selected ten (10) football matches, which is the maximum number of matches allowed, placing the matches with serial numbers 334 in the left column of the betting slip, 335 342, , 344, 345, 346, 351, 353, 354 and 361 and in the corresponding ten (10) boxes in the right column set 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. Its predetermined odds OPAP for each of the matches chosen by the claimant were: 1) for 334 race, 5.00, 2) for 335 race, 3.30, 3) for 342 race, 6.25, 4) for 344 race, 3.30, 5) for the 345 race, 5.00, 6) for the 346 race, 4.75, 7) for the 351 race, 4.25, 8) for the 353 race, 3.00, 9) for the 354 race, 2.10 and 10) for the 361 race, 3.30. The plaintiff also chose number five (5) as a multiplier. The same combination of matches, selected points and multiplier was repeated by the plaintiff in five (5) more sheets. Under the terms of the game, the claimant paid for each card the value of the column, € 0,30, on the multiplier chosen (5), that is, per card, the amount of (€ 0,30 X 5) = EUR 1,50 and for the six (6) bulletins total (EUR 1,50 X 6) = EUR 9. The above six (6) sheets, filed by the plaintiff continuously over a period of approximately two (2) minutes, were accepted by the defendant's central computer system ( OPAP) and put "E" in the print area of ​​each. On the day following the expiry of the above game (10-6-2004), "SA ORGANIZATION, OPERATION AND BETWEEN SOCIETY SA" as manager of the game addressed the defendant ( OPAPits letter dated 10-6-2004 requesting the application of Article 10 of the General Rules of Operation of Pre-Performed Betting Games given that the above plaintiff's slips were deposited instead of one slip, with the obvious aim of circumventing the special acceptance procedure bets and pay out winnings higher than expected. Subsequently, the same company wrote to him OPAP and its letter dated 11-6-2004 stating, inter alia, that the short time span (22 seconds on average) that has elapsed since the filing of the bulletins and the repeated choice of predictors and multipliers prove that these bulletins are shared a single bet in order to make profits in excess of the maximum laid down in Article 10 of the Regulation and that such allocation did not permit the application of the special procedure provided for in Article 5, as it reduced the per card difference inomeno risk in this sixth. At the end of the competition, on 11-6-2004, all of the plaintiff's forecasts, ie the combination of the teams, which had recorded in the above six (6) entry sheets, had complete success. As soon as the plaintiff was informed on 11-6-2004 of the success of his reports, he visited the above agency and went to the competent service with his agent. OPAP, to follow the legal process of collecting his profits. Its responsible service OPAP attach to each of the six (6) coupons their respective payment requests and, in particular, to the number ... 0 to the number ... 18 payment request, to the number ... 1 Bulletin No ... 31 Payment Notice ... No 2 Bulletin No ... 26 Bulletin No 5 ... 3 Bulletin No ... .27 Payment Request, for ... 4 Bulletin No ... 59 Payment Request and ... 5 Bulletin for Payment No. 3234435948 and recommended the applicant to go to Commercial Bank and collect its profits within two (2) working days. On 16 June 2004 the applicant went to…. Bank on the road… .. where his competent officer paid only one (1) of the six (6) cards (ie the number ... 0 card), paying him EUR 697.017, that is , the maximum per voucher amount of EUR 733.675,72, excluding tax of EUR 36.658,65. At the same time, an employee of the Bank informed the plaintiff that the remaining five [5] cards were "locked" in the computer and could not pay them and, in a related telephone call to the defendant (OPAP), with the question of why the remaining five (5) sheets are not paid, received the reply that these sheets would not be paid and that the plaintiff had to go to OPAP to find out. During the plaintiff's transfer to the defendant's offices, he was informed by his employee that his Board of Directors OPAP, based on the Rules of Procedure of the Agency, decided not to pay the remaining five (5) sheets and that decision could be made in writing by his / her attorney at his / her request. Indeed, on 18-6-2004, the plaintiff filed with his attorney-in-law his application dated… .6 / 18.6.2004 requesting the immediate and full payment of the remaining five (5) and, in case of refusal OPAPthe latter to provide him with a copy of the corresponding opinion of his legal department on which his refusal was based. The defendant OPAP in his letter dated 1-3-7 to the plaintiff he stated: "In response to your request dated 2004-18-6, we inform you that OPAP SA is obliged to apply the applicable law for our company, and in particular Article 10 in conjunction with Article 5 of the GENERAL RULES FOR DETERMINED PERFORMANCE (Joint Ministerial Decree 29159 / GG, 1427/2000) and therefore one of you according to Article 1 (3) of the General Rules, it is provided that "the participation of players in predetermined betting games shall be free provided that the participants are fully and unconditionally reserved. acceptance of the provisions of the relevant existing legislative framework of Law 2433/1996, Presidential Decree 250/1998, the present General Regulation, the Special Rules of Procedure set by OPAP for each "Preset Gambling Game" and the specific terms and conditions it sets for this purpose each time OPAP"It has been shown that the terms of the dispute at issue, which the plaintiff has submitted, clearly state the conditions for participation in the competition, including the following:" Participation in betting contests requires full, absolute and unconditional acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Law. , the Predefined Gambling Operations Regulations, the Regulations for the Conduct of Each Game, as well as the Terms and Conditions specified in the Program Form. Betting is allowed up to 10 minutes before the start of the first timed event from the player's selection events. The column price is EUR 0,30 and earnings above EUR 146,74 per column are subject to a 5% tax. The maximum stake per bet is set at 29.347,03 EURO. Maximum payout per coupon is set at 733.675,72 EURO. The coupon is only valid if the letter E is printed on it followed by a date-time and a code number. Card cancellation can be made up to 5 minutes after the card is validated by the same Agent Terminal. The profits are collected by any agency, unless they exceed the applicable limit, whereby they are paid by the banks with which the company operates. OPAP. No profit is paid in case of loss of the winning ticket. Unearned profits are written off after 3 months. Deadline for submitting a complaint is 6 days from the closing date of the competition. The player submitting the card to the agency accepts the above as binding. Detailed information can be provided by the agent ".

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
In addition, the program of the game, which the plaintiff received from the above agency, specifies the terms of participation, namely: Participation in betting contests requires full, absolute and unconditional acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Procedure Predefined bets, the rules of the game in question, as well as the terms and conditions set out in the Program Form .... Maximum bet amount per coupon set It is EUR 29.347,03. Maximum payout per card is set at 733.675,72 EURO ...... The player accepting the card at the betting agency accepts the above as binding. Detailed information can be provided by the agent. "The applicable terms and rules of the game are also described in detail in a special leaflet entitled" Everything for PAME Betting "distributed to all agents for the purpose of the latter. distribution to all players of PAME Betting, which (form) makes explicit reference to the entire applicable legal framework. In particular, the "special betting procedure" of Rule 5 of the above Regulation is set out in the relevant special form "Everything for the P. AM STYCHIMA ", received by the plaintiff from his above agency OPAP and stipulates that, if the amount bets exceeds a certain threshold, a specific approval procedure must be followed, which involves negotiating the details of that bet, with the ultimate goal of reaching an agreement and ultimately validating a new product-bet. negotiation. That is to say, the card to be validated is not rejected, but OPAP requires the player to negotiate the card selection details with the player through the agent. Further, it turned out that in its predetermined betting odds OPAP, like this "PAME BET" game, which includes football matches, their odds are determined in advance by OPAP. Initial odds are communicated to players prior to the start of the game, and as the game progresses they can be modified, but in each case the player betting knows the amount they will win in advance. , once its predictions have been verified, "without having to wait for the end of the competition. Completion by a player or a group of players with multiple entry cards, without even any restriction on the content or type of content these options in the same or different agencies, even in different cities of Greece, is, in principle, permissible, as shown in the above betting operation regulation of predetermined performance OPAP and the special instruction leaflet distributed to players. However, by the above provision of Article 10 par. (b) of the Regulation regulates a specific prohibited conduct of the player, regardless of his or her ability or knowledge of the matter, consisting of multiple filing of participation cards in the same or more agencies with the aim of circumventing the specific acceptance procedure (Article 1 of the Regulation) with the player and exceeding the profit threshold of GRD 5 per coupon. That is, when, although there are grounds for a specific agreement with the player, which consists of negotiating to modify any of his options (such as in the event of betting or winnings being exceeded), he is shown to be involved in methods such as to prevent or disallow the defendant (OPAPinitiate the procedure for concluding a special agreement, acting in contravention of the above provisions of Articles 5 (2) and 10 (2) of the Regulation, in which case OPAP is entitled to set as a sum of profits the maximum profit of GRD 250.000.000.OPAP), in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the General Rules for the operation of predetermined betting games OPAP SA ", reserves, without justification for its decision, its right to accept or reject any bet at any time, and, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the same article, if at its discretion OPAP it is found that there are grounds for special agreement with the player there is a specific acceptance procedure, which involves negotiating to modify any player options. In the crunchy case, the plaintiff, who for many years participated in the "PAME BETWEEN FOOTBALL" game, was aware, as an experienced player, of the completion of each ticket, the printed conditions of participation, including that the maximum expected Participation card is the amount of 733.675,72 euros (250.000.000 GRD), accepting all the terms of the relevant legislation and the Rules of Procedure upon deposit. He made his above-mentioned selections with a budgeted return to the maximum permissible and attributable to him. OPAP profit per card, knowing by his calculations, as an experienced player, the exact returns of the similar deposit cards and that each card, if successful, would bring him the maximum projected profit. Thus the plaintiff, even though he knew that, in the event of his choice being verified, the profit per coupon would be [(EUR 0,30 - 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 that he would receive only the maximum allowable profit per euro (EUR XNUMX), knowing that he was not entitled to a profit greater than that. Moreover, he (the plaintiff) never considered that he was entitled to more than the maximum profit per amount, which would, as he knew, be required to comply with the specific authorization procedure, the application of which did not require OPAP, as a result of which such coupons are accepted by his system OPAP and receive only the maximum profit for one card in accordance with Rule 10 (1) of the General Rules. The plaintiff's choice of the above method of participation, by filling the same options in six identical coupons (worth € 1,5 each), instead of one card (€ nine) was made aware that the ceiling The profit per card is 733.633,72 euros and that by the way he chose to play he could overcome it by avoiding the above special approval procedure. Thus, it intended that, in the event of success, the entry sheets would not appear as a single coupon, resulting in more profits, ie, a six-fold increase in the maximum payout per coupon, when the profit ceiling was circumvented. per coupon.
Consequently, the plaintiff knew, as an experienced player, that by filling all of his options in one card (nine euros), instead of six cards (1,50 euros each), he would receive the one-time stipulated in his first paragraph. Article 10 of the Maximum Earnings Regulation no matter what the overall return on profits would be. Provided that, in the event that he completed all his options in a coupon (worth nine euros), the plaintiff would not be able to collect the total amount of 4.402.054,32 euros (the plaintiff claimed), but would receive only the maximum amount of profit of EUR 733.675,72 (Article 10 (a) of the Regulation) irrespective of the overall return on profits, as this would not be accepted by the OPAP, because the plaintiff had to adhere to a specific negotiation procedure (Article 5) by OPAP, which is stated in the form distributed to him, the contents of which the plaintiff had become aware of. In view of this it is apparent that the plaintiff knew that his choices in six identical bulletins would be highly profitable and would have to undergo the special negotiation procedure with OPAP through his agent. The plaintiff, however, in order to avoid the specific negotiation process with the defendant (OPAP) and to achieve the maximum profit per card six times, followed this practice to exceed and multiply its known profit per card limit, and in particular by selecting the maximum match limit of one (10) (1) Output for each race and a multiplier, repeated exactly the same choices in six (6) entry sheets, each giving him the maximum winnings, claiming this maximum winnings six times. The above entry forms, which the plaintiff played, were, as mentioned above, accepted as valid by his central computer system. OPAP, a condition necessary for the application of Article 10 (1) (e). b) of the Rules of Procedure. The acceptance of the sheets only by the system and not the rejection of the sheets by the defendant system in the first place (OPAP) cannot establish the legitimacy of the above plaintiff's participation in the game. Ability to control it OPAP at this stage, in order to request the latter to adhere to the participant's "special bet acceptance procedure", it is only possible if a player attempts to exceed the limits with a card, in which case he / she will be directly affected by the bans and in order to do so, it must adhere to a specific negotiation to reach a specific agreement. However, where a player, such as the claimant in this case, attempts to exceed the limits by submitting multiple identical cards, the possibility for the defendant to control (OPAP) is limited, given the enormous volume of deposited vouchers and their generally anonymous. However, after the end of the game, the winning cards are less than the deposit cards and the winning players become known, the defendant (OPAP) has more information at its disposal to check, where appropriate, whether the limits and the specific trading process have been circumvented by imposing, as far as possible, the maximum projected profit. In the light of the foregoing, the prohibition on circumvention of the ceiling by the deposit of more, similar forms was known to the plaintiff, who had been aware, as stated above, of the special form and was able, in any event, to obtain knowledge of the Regulation, which had been published in the Government Gazette and posted on the Internet. Thereafter the conditions of application of ed. b 'of par. 1 of Article 10 in conjunction with Article 5 of the General Rules, after the claimant has incorporated the above practice in order to circumvent the special deal relating to the profit ceiling. Given that he has deliberately chosen the particular football matches in proportion to his performance and the particular way he has been involved in the game, dividing the amount of the same matches into more cards on the one hand and the expected profit from the same bet (profit per bet) in more identical bulletins on the other hand. Accordingly, the claim of the defendant and the interveners in support of that claim, at first instance, reiterated on the basis of their appeals that the plaintiff is entitled only to the maximum allowable profit of one card, namely 733.675,72, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 5 of the General Rules of Operation of Preset Gambling Operations (Joint Ministerial Decision 29159 FEK 1427 / 2000), is well founded ". The Court of Appeal further acknowledged in its judgment that: "the plaintiff, who participated in the above game" PAME BETWEEN "his defendant on 9 June 2004, sought, as aforesaid, in the aforementioned way of winning the game of profit all six identical coupons, in breach 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 payout. In his conduct above, the plaintiff sought to circumvent the special procedure of Article 5 of the Regulation in the expectation of maximizing his profits by taking such (profits), in violation of the maximum payout limit, which he had conventionally accepted within the limits of allowances. and his obligations from participating in the game. This deprived the defendant of the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the plaintiff's participation in the game and the possibility of deciding whether the new terms proposed by the player were acceptable so that they would be accepted the contract in question. It was also established that the defendant in its reply did not unilaterally and without special reason refuse to reimburse the plaintiff, but rendered to him, pursuant to the relevant conditions (Art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulation), the legal gain of a ticket. And the provision of the 2 subparagraph of Article 1 paragraph 10 of the Regulation does not constitute a limitation of this contractual obligation of the first subparagraph, but a regulation to protect and enforce it in the event that counterparties with good faith behaviors and practices engage in conduct to bypass it. That is, the above condition does not introduce a unilateral restriction on the player's achieved profits, as the plaintiff alleges, because his profits were derived from his conduct, the conditions of which are clearly, definitively and comprehensively described. layout. Also, the above condition does not provide for the termination of the contract for participation in the game, nor for the modification of the contract, as its content is the provision by the contracting defendant of the maximum amount of profit per card under the particular terms specified. The defendant (OPAP) in the case of applying Article 2 (10), as in the present case, did not waive his contractual obligation, but instead fulfilled it by paying the participant the maximum profit for a voucher ... "The Court of Appeal further goes on to state that" most The above provisions of Article 5 of the Regulation do not constitute unilateral modification or termination of the contract within the meaning of point 2 (7) of article 2251 (1994) of Law 1/5 without a specific and significant reason. Because, in the case of Article 2251 (1994), there is no contractual relationship between the parties, since the participant proposes to conclude the contract, but the Respondent Agency does not accept it and therefore there is no scope of the above provisions of Law 2 / 5. In the case of Article XNUMX (XNUMX) of the above Regulation, a specific negotiation procedure is provided for the conclusion of a player participation contract, specifying the terms of the contract which the defendant organization may accept or reject, provided that these terms deviate from the basic conditions of participation specified in the Rules for participation in the game.

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
Consequently, 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-existing general terms (General Trading Terms), which the player accepts as a whole. not having the ability to negotiate and formulate them, but as a result of negotiating, among the Contracting Parties, terms that deviate from the basic conditions of participation specified in the Rules for participation in the game d. Moreover, this (the application of Article 5) is imposed by the defendant's interest in the smooth conduct of the game to serve the interests of all players and to safeguard the financial viability of the bet itself, given that non-distributable profits are distributed. subsidizing and financing public benefit actions and in areas of public policy practice (Art. 5 PD 250/1997). To reinforce these, it should be noted that, in the above predefined performance game, where the sole criterion for the success of a player's choices is not the factor of luck, but that the player's specific choices contain a degree of information-based predictability, good their appreciation for every sporting event, the experience with their long-term involvement, and, in the event of success, bypassing the relevant rules of the game, huge profits would lead to a radical overthrow of the financial foundations of the participation contract at its expense OPAP with onerous consequences not only for the public benefit of its organization but also for the other participating players. The purpose of this risk is to prevent this condition (Article 5) of the defendant's regulation, in order to safeguard the public interest that the defendant is obliged to guard in the field of pre-defined or non-performance mass toys. Also, for the risk management of the game there are restrictions not only on the maximum profit and multiple bets but also on the amount of wagering, ie the organizer's right to accept wagering amounts above a certain limit, ie the amount of 10.000.000 drachmas. or 29.347,03 euro ....... Thus, those provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which are alleged to be abusive, do not constitute a departure from the rules of domestic law in such a way as to disturb the contractual balance between the consumer and the supplier. On the contrary, the relevant provisions are not only divergent but have been put in place precisely to protect each of the Contracting Parties from any unconventional and abusive behaviors that disturb the contractual balance between them. In view of the foregoing the above conditions are not abusive, according to the provisions of N. 2251 / 1994, in so far as they are clear, comprehensible, as defined in both the defendant's regulation and the cards for participation in the above game and do not result in a significant disturbance of the rights and obligations of the parties to the plaintiff, nor do they limit or excessively exclude the defendant's liability, neither reserve the right to unilaterally amend or terminate the contract nor violate the principle of transparency. " On those grounds, the Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's and the appellant's interveners and the appellants' appeals and, having dismissed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which upheld the appellant's action, dismissed that plea, alleging that he had participated in the proceedings. in the game "PAME BET" with six (6) separate entry sheets, in which she played the same combination of teams, each having success and winning 733.675,72 € each and totaling 4.402.054 €, 32 €, her defendant and first respondent one del which uncontrollably refuses to pay the rest and requested that it be declared legally obliged to pay the remainder of 3.668.378,60 €. In particular, it dismissed the action, after admitting the defendant's claim and already under appeal, based on the provisions of Articles 5 par. 2 and 10 par. set as the aggregate sum of profits of the appellant the amount of 2 drachmas (250.000.000 €), as it has been established that by filling in the above six (733,675,72) coupons with similar provisions acted in contravention of those provisions, It held that those options, if successful, would have yields that exceeded the profit margins, and in order to avoid the special agreement negotiated to modify its options in that case, it abandoned the practice; completing six (6) bulletins with similar predictions. By what it upheld and, as the Court of Appeal held, it did not violate the provision of Article 361 AK, since the first respondent by defining as the aggregate sum of the respondent's maximum profits of 250.000.000 drachmas (733.675,72 €) did not proceed unilaterally alteration or cancellation of their participation in the game "PAME Betting", but made in accordance with the above articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules of Operation of Fixed Betting Games", due to their practical circumvention , which the appellant came forward with. Accordingly, the first, second and third pleas in law relate to the pleas in law alleging no. Article 1 of the 559 Code of Conduct, and in particular that with these assumptions violated the provision of the Article 361 AK are to be rejected as unfounded.
For the purposes of Art. 559 no. 19 CCLD, the decision has no legal basis and the corresponding ground of appeal is founded where, from its assumptions, which are contained in the minor proposal of its legal reasoning and are the reasoning behind it, the facts do not arise at all or inadequate or contradictory which the trial court upheld in its judgment on a question which has a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings, so that it could not be examined whether the conditions of the substantive rule in this case had been fulfilled. applied or not met the conditions of what was not implemented. (OLAP 1 / 1999). The procedural completeness of this plea must state what constitutes the lack of a legal basis (complete lack, inadequacy or contradiction) of the grounds of the contested decision, and in particular, where a ground for insufficient or unclear reasons is raised, the application must state which reasons, and why they are inadequate or unclear, what further incidents should be mentioned in order for the reasons to be sufficient and clear, without sufficient general expression that "it is inadequate unclear or vague reasons "(All CA 20 / 2005, 32 / 1996), in addition, the issue to which it relates and which has a material bearing on the outcome of the proceedings and on which, according to the appellant, the decision is not lawful, must be stated. basis, the order breached, and the actual assumptions of the decision. In the present case, with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth pleas in law according to the appellant, the appellant alleges that the contested decision lacks a legal basis because the Court of Appeal dismissed them with insufficient and unclear reasons. having its own factual assertions and having a significant influence on the outcome of the proceedings, that the terms of Articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules for the Operation of Fixed Betting Games", on which the the defendants' contention that he, having acted in circumvention of them, is entitled to the maximum allowable profit of one card, that is to say, 733.675,72 euro and not that of the other five cards in the contested game which he sought in his action, because they are invalid, void and abusive, as covered by Articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 AK and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of N.2251 / 1994 and thus upheld the appellants' appeals, annulled the judgment and dismissed his action as unfounded in substance. Those pleas in law alleging a failure to act. The 19 of Article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited above, must be rejected as vague because it does not specify in the appeal what the inadequate and unclear reasons for the decision are, and what additional facts it should contain in order to be sufficient and clear. The ground of appeal under Article 559 no. 8 CSLD, which aims to secure the discussion system (Art. 106 Code of Conduct), but also the principle of hearing the parties (Art. 110§2 Code of Conduct), established when the court of law is in breach of the law and obviously incorrect in assessing procedural documents (Art. 561§2 CCJ) either took into account the things that were not proposed and had a material impact on the outcome of the trial (OLAP 13 / 1995) or did not take into account the things that were proposed and also had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial, meaning things separate claims of the parties that tend to establish, dismiss or impede the practitioner by bringing an action, objection or opposition to a substantive or procedural right (OL 3 / 1997, OL 1225 / 2004, 1530 / 2001 form the operative part of the contested decision (OLP 2 / 1998, OL 1072-3 / 200, 864 / 2003) and should, in the light of allegations which were not taken into account, had to be taken into account, be admissible before the court of the substance X / 2, 2001 / 12) and even by the appellant (2000 / 881). In particular, if the decision of the court of appeal is contested for the above reason, the claim which was not assessed should have been admissible in the court of first instance, but also admissible (with main or additional appeal or accordingly, according to Art. 240 CCLD, with proposals) and second instance (CA 1011 / 1994) and report this to the appellant (CA 760 / 2004, 539 / 2003, 885 / 1994), unless it is subject to the exceptions to Art. 562 par. 2 CCLD (OLAP 43 / 1990) or is a claim admissible under Art. 527 CCLD was first proposed in the appeal proceedings, which also needs to be clarified in the appellate court (CA 354 / 2011). However, this ground of appeal is not substantiated if the court hears this plea in law and rejects it for any reason, formal or substantive, even if its rejection is not express but in the substance of the judgment (OLAP 11 / 1996, 148 / 2009). In the present case, the appellant, with its first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth pleas in law, alleging that the Court of Appeal failed to take into account his separate submissions made by him as a suspect and having a material bearing on the outcome of the proceedings, that the terms of Articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules for the Operation of Fixed Betting Games", in which the defendants contended that, because acted in circumvention of them, entitled to the maximum allowable profit of one card, that is to say, 733.675,72 euro and not that of the other five cards in the contested game which he sought in his action should not be applied because they are invalid and invalid; as subject to the provisions of Articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 AK and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of N.2251 / 1994 and thus upheld the appellants' appeals, annulled the judgment and dismissed his action as unfounded in substance. Those pleas in law, cited above, are based on the above allegation. 8 b of the 559 Code article, are to be rejected as unfounded. In particular, it is clear from the admissible Article 561 par. 2 Code of Conduct, an overview of the procedural documents and the contested decision, that the Court of Appeal took into account those allegations which, following the admission of the appeals and the disappearance of the first-instance judgment, investigated under the provisions of Articles 522, 535 and 536 CPC, as an auxiliary basis, irrespective of the fact that the same facts as presented in the Court of First Instance had the character of the claim time of independent rebuttal against the defendant's objection to the provisions of Rule 5 and 10 above, (in the alternative proceedings, in the case in which the defendant sought and on appeal the application of those provisions ) and rejected them either explicitly or de facto with his assumptions to the contrary.

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
The provision of Article 559 No. 10 of the ICC Appeal, following the abolition of the second case, which provided for the possibility of an appeal if the court accepted things which had a material effect on the outcome of the trial as genuine "without ordering evidence" in Article 17 par. 2 by n. 2915 / 2001, as after the removal of the provision of article 341 Code on the possibility of a preliminary ruling and the application of Article 270 in all cases, with Article 14 par. 1 of the same law, has limited application where "the court has accepted things which have a material effect on the outcome of the trial as genuinely without evidence", ie when the court does not state by what means it has drawn evidence or no evidence has been adduced. (CA 273 / 2011,1700 / 2009). In the present case, as is apparent from the contested decision, the Court of Appeal made its judgment and reached its evidentiary finding that, having accepted the appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance, it dismissed that decision and dismissed the appellant's action after took into account the witnesses' affidavits of the parties, the legally produced documents relied on, and the no. 500 / 11-1-2005 and 591 / 12-1-2005 affidavits before the Athens Court of Appeal, presented and cited by the appellant, following the lawful and timely appeal of the appellants. It follows that the contested decision did not accept as true matters having a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings without evidence and the first, in its view, the ground of appeal alleging the contrary is to be rejected as unfounded. From the provisions of 562 par. 2 CCLD concludes that it is an inadmissible ground of appeal based on an allegation which was not or was not lawfully proposed to the court of substance unless it is (a) an infringement which cannot be brought to the court of substance (b) and (c) a claim relating to public policy. This inadmissibility refers to all the grounds of appeal under Article 559 Code. The above provision is a manifestation of the fundamental principle that the Court of Justice examines the lawfulness of the judgment of the court of law on the basis of the factual and legal situation which the substantive judge had to take into account and establishes a special condition for admissibility of the grounds of appeal, whose assistance must be obtained from the appellant. It must be stated, therefore, that the allegation underlying the plea had been lawfully proposed in the court of law, specifying the manner and time of the motion or re-affirmation of the plea, so that it could be decided by the appellant whether it was admissible and lawful, and if the court has examined the case in its substance, the relevant assumptions underlying the alleged infringement must also be mentioned in the appeal. For the purposes of investigating the merits of the appeals, it is permissible to review the documents of the same or another proceedings in accordance with Article 561 par. 2 Cold. In the present case, the appellant relied on the seventh ground of appeal, alleging infringements of the present case. 1, 8 and 19 of Article 559 Code of Civil Procedure, seeks the annulment of the contested decision because the Court of Appeal held that the defendant and the first respondent were not obliged to pay the default performance of the other five (5) stipulations, 5 of its Rules of Procedure, but thus violating the constitutionality of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 10, which he asserted before the Court of Appeal as a defendant, since the defendant and the first respondent nevertheless retained ( above, which, in this case, is small, but could amount to millions of euros. Further to the last plea in law, also alleging infringements of Nos. 1, 8 and 19 of Article 559 Code of Civil Procedure, seeks the annulment of the contested decision because the Court of Appeal held that the defendant and the first respondent were not obliged to pay the default performance of the other five (5) stipulations, 5 of its Rules of Procedure, but in so doing infringes the ECHR and in particular Article 10 thereof, which establishes the principle of "fair trial" which it has put forward before the Court of Appeal as an appellant, since the above provisions of the Rules establish the right of the defendant Her and her first respondent at any time accepting or not accepting any bet and with no reason to exclude the existence of a "fair trial". All of the foregoing reasons must be rejected as inadmissible in so far as it is admissible pursuant to Article 561 par. 2 Code of Conduct, review of appellant's documents before the Court of Appeal does not show that he alleged that the above provisions of the Rules of Procedure infringe the principle of proportionality as well as the consequent principle of "law of procedure" in Article 6 of the ECHR. Lastly, for the same reason, the first and third pleas in law, in so far as relevant, the pleas in law of the Court of First Instance in Case C-213/04, must be rejected as inadmissible. 1, 8 and 19 of Article 559 Code, in which the appellant alleges that the above provisions of the Rules violate the principle of equality deriving from Article 4 of the Constitution, as well as Article 93 of the Constitution in so far as they entitle the defendant to already the first respondent against it to make a unilateral, unreasonable and at all times altered contract between them. That is also because the review of the appellant's written documents before the Court of Appeal does not show that he had put forward those arguments. Accordingly, the above grounds of the present appeal, for which the case has been referred back to this Section, must be rejected after issue no. 12 / 2017, Judgment of the Plenary of this Court, rejecting the pleas cited therein, as well as that of the Court in its entirety. Further, it must be ordered, in par. Article 4 of the 495 Code, the introduction of the three hundred euro (300) fee paid by the appellant, as reported in the 382 / 2014 Appeal Report filed by the Athens Court of Appeal Registrar. Finally, the costs between the parties to the two hearings, namely before the Plenary, which did not impose a court order on this A1 Chamber, must be offset in full, in accordance with Articles 179 and 183 CCPD, because they were very difficult to apply.

FOR THOSE REASONS
Dismisses the application by 21-5-2014 for revocation of no. 5189 / 2012 final judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal.
It orders the introduction of the three-hundred-euro (300) fee paid by the appellant to the Treasury.
Orders the parties to bear the costs.
SEARCHED and decided in Athens on 19 April 2018.
PUBLISHED in Athens in public, at his audience on 25 June 2018.

VICE
THE SECRETARY

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
And because you can think of what the guy played. This was the all-day program and chose the matches with the green highlighted.


element.JPG

giannisthegreek

Well-Known Member
17 Nov 2012
1,793
1,990
113
Piraeus
So you say I play one of the crazy cards I usually play and I write it here .. if 5,10,20 people follow the same cards and we win and we pass the ceiling all together then what happens? Won't we present them?

Sent from my MYA-L41 using Tapatalk

Pro

Active Member
25 Feb 2012
197
62
28
Eventually the formula and 6 releases were not paid;
I read it all but with the lawyers I have not.

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
If 10 or 20 people play the same cards will be paid. If an adult family goes with one ticket each person on hand will NOT be paid if one goes with 5 tickets is not paid.

bets.JPG
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: giannisthegreek

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
Analogously. If for example 10 people who do not know each other and one is in Xanthi, the other in Crete and the other 8 in Athens play exactly the same card, will they not be paid? With this logic one should not bet on him again OPAP

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
204
92
28
I don't know if then, that 2004 knew this particular player that he might not get paid by breaking the tickets to 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a great performance and you really believed that he would come combination (otherwise why sit down to break the newsletters), did you not come to mind the simplest, that is, to kick from an 2 single opportunity of 1,02, a favorite in every newsletter? How many of them would break? and 6 is excluded. At least half, I wouldn't say it all, so manny would have had the worst case of 2.200.000 at hand.
Too bad again some of you have the ability and you don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
I have been doing this for years now in the big newsletter with crazy odds. : ROFLMAO:

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
I don't know if then, that 2004 knew this particular player that he might not get paid by breaking the tickets to 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a great performance and you really believed that he would come combination (otherwise why sit down to break the newsletters), did you not come to mind the simplest, that is, to kick from an 2 single opportunity of 1,02, a favorite in every newsletter? How many of them would break? and 6 is excluded. At least half, I wouldn't say it all, so manny would have had the worst case of 2.200.000 at hand.
Too bad again some of you have the ability and you don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
I have been doing this for years now in the big newsletter with crazy odds. : ROFLMAO:
Again they are covered by the term they have set because they also mention the case of such options.

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
Go above and read post number 10 I have uploaded a photo of the term that applies to maximum profits. Read it and you will understand. It's so abusive that lies to OPAP if 10 people don't know each other exactly the same cards from different areas if they get paid, claiming to work collectively as if the player must smell their nails to know what the rest of the players will be playing in the Territory!

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
204
92
28
Yeah you're right about writing it ... Finally there are big bangs over there ...
Anyway, I thought of another way to circumvent this restriction, much more sly.
But I'm not mentioning it here because many of us are reading it so it's not at all unlikely to include it in any future supplemental terms ....
Last edited:

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,069
951
113
Yeah you're right about writing it ... Finally there are big bangs over there ...
Anyway, I thought of another way to circumvent this restriction, much more sly.
But I'm not mentioning it here because many of us are reading it so it's not at all unlikely to include it in any future supplemental terms ....
Combination of accurate scores but since the options are similar whatever you do have covered the issue ...

Predictions

  • 20:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 2 HD
    • Spanish Championship 2019 - 2020
  • 21:45
    Novasports 1HD
    • Charlton - Millwall
  • 23:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 2 HD
    • Atletico Madrid - Mallorca
    • There are no basketball sports broadcasts today
  • 11:50
    COSMOTE SPORT 5 HD
    • Formula 1 2020 - Austrian Grand Prix
  • 12:00
    ERT Sports HD
    • Formula 1 2020 - Austrian Grand Prix
  • 15:50
    COSMOTE SPORT 5 HD
    • Formula 1 2020 - Austrian Grand Prix
  • 19:00
    ERT Sports HD
    • PAOK - Panathinaikos
General Chat
Aid Users
  • No one is chatting right now.
  • BetLaden Forum Bot:
    User BetLaden started a new theme called "IFC Cup, Phase 8: 29/06 - 02/07/2020" in the IFC Competition.
  • Ertzan Forum Bot:
    User Ertzan started a new theme called "RIP Elephant" in the For Reds.
  • Ertzan Forum Bot:
    User Ertzan started a new theme called "Finally, Obradovic" in the Sports news.
  • kostas69 kostas69:
    Good evening, in the Tipster Challenge I have passed two wrong results in the games Villarreal - Sevilla +4,44 instead of +4,84 and in Manchester City - Burnley instead of -5, by mistake +5 (it is of course red) but it is good for correct flow of the contest to be corrected ... I tried to change it, but the system doesn't let me ... Please if anyone from the management can change it. Thanks
    good luck to everyone !!!
  • F Forum Bot:
    User Hawk started a new theme called "Championsbet's cafe" in the The betting market news.
  • Water resistant Forum Bot:
    User Water resistant started a new theme called "Can i bet" in the Betting conversations.
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    For the postponed 1st match of the play offs (28th match in the competition) the winner is athanasios13. The gift has been sent and he can find instructions in his email.
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    kostas69 said:
    Good evening, in the Tipster Challenge I have passed two wrong results in the games Villarreal - Sevilla +4,44 instead of +4,84 and in Manchester City - Burnley instead of -5, by mistake +5 (it is of course red) but it is good for correct flow of the contest to be corrected ... I tried to change it, but the system doesn't let me ... Please if anyone from the management can change it. Thank you all for all !!!
    Everything is OK. They have been corrected.
  • P PANATHA:
    Good evening to the company .... have you passed the matches for the match with the scores?
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    Hey bastard, did you show up now that Zots is gone and are you asking about the kitten scores in ours? :p
  • BetLaden Forum Bot:
    User BetLaden started a new theme called "IFC # 16: GROUP DISORDER A and B" in the IFC Competition.
  • P Forum Bot:
    User prasinostrifilaras started a new theme called "Group twinning-mergers" in the Cafe.
  • S Forum Bot:
  • S Forum Bot:
    User Siomos1 started a new theme called "Happy Birthday Peter and Paul!" in the Announcements - Support.
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    for the 4th game of the Superleague competition the winner of the prize is athanasios13. Check his email for instructions.
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    The 5th game opened for predictions ... and concerns only the 3 matches of Wednesday
  • Ertzan Ertzan:
    Like today in 2013, Zotsaros had signed for us aaaaah ah nostalgia
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    Zots in Fener ??? : npaper: since when is this newspaper ???
  • BetLaden Forum Bot:
    User BetLaden started a new theme called "Happy month" in the Cafe.
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    waiting for the draw to take place for the 4th match ... between the two candidate winners of the prize ....
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    I announce the winner of the 5th match of the superleague competition ... which is Eric Castel!
  • BetLaden BetLaden:
    The gift was sent ... :)
  • Eric Castel Eric Castel:
    Thank you very much!
  • T ThanosKozi:
    @BetLaden regarding the lottery contest of the 31st match I sent you a message yesterday morning!
  • BetLaden Forum Bot:
    User BetLaden started a new theme called "IFC Cup, Semifinals: 07- 09/07/2020" in the IFC Competition.
    BetLaden Forum Bot: BetLaden has launched a new theme called "IFC Cup, Semifinals: 07 -...